Classic Liberalism V.S. Progressivism.

[Contumacious]

Why did the Founders, outside of Alexander Hamilton, subscribe to Limited Government, Enumerated Powers? .

I am not a Hamiltonian.

But there is no historical evidence that Mr Hamilton wanted a massive centralized federal government

"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and
to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only
unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even
be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers
not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a
colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why
declare that things shall not be done which there is no power
to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of
the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by
which restrictions may be imposed?"

Federalist 84

.

 

[Foxfyre]

Why did the Founders, outside of Alexander Hamilton, subscribe to Limited Government, Enumerated Powers? .

I am not a Hamiltonian.

But there is no historical evidence that Mr Hamilton wanted a massive centralized federal government

"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and
to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only
unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even
be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers
not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a
colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why
declare that things shall not be done which there is no power
to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of
the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by
which restrictions may be imposed?"

Federalist 84

.

Agreed. Hamilton was a classical liberal as much as any of the others. He just had a somewhat different idea of the scope of government and how strong a central government should be; but in the end, he was not that much different from his colleagues.

Hamilton had a good reasoned argument re the Bill of Rights and it did result in considerable debate and discussion. So much of the Constitution was hammered out by those great men who struggled to eliminate natural pitfalls while eliminating all concepts of a 'monarchy' and at the same time accomplishing the protections necessary for a people to govern themselves in peace. No easy feat. In the end, though they did not agree on every point, every signer of the Constitution compromised and accepted some components in the Constitution that he would have preferred to be different, But their collective effort gave us one of the most remarkable documents the world had ever seen.

The Bill of Rights was one of those areas of compromise. If those who had opposed it had not agreed to it, there likely would not have been a United States of America.

And The Bill of Rights has stood the test of time for two and a quarter centuries now.

 

[Contumacious]

Why did the Founders, outside of Alexander Hamilton, subscribe to Limited Government, Enumerated Powers? .

I am not a Hamiltonian.

But there is no historical evidence that Mr Hamilton wanted a massive centralized federal government

"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and
to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only
unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even
be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers
not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a
colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why
declare that things shall not be done which there is no power
to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of
the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by
which restrictions may be imposed?"

Federalist 84

.

Agreed. Hamilton was a classical liberal as much as any of the others. He just had a somewhat different idea of the scope of government and how strong a central government should be; but in the end, he was not that much different from his colleagues.

Hamilton had a good reasoned argument re the Bill of Rights and it did result in considerable debate and discussion. So much of the Constitution was hammered out by those great men who struggled to eliminate natural pitfalls while eliminating all concepts of a 'monarchy' and at the same time accomplishing the protections necessary for a people to govern themselves in peace. No easy feat. In the end, though they did not agree on every point, every signer of the Constitution compromised and accepted some components in the Constitution that he would have preferred to be different, But their collective effort gave us one of the most remarkable documents the world had ever seen.

The Bill of Rights was one of those areas of compromise. If those who had opposed it had not agreed to it, there likely would not have been a United States of America.

And The Bill of Rights has stood the test of time for two and a quarter centuries now.

Well not really.

For example, The Constitution provides no authority whatsoever for the federal government to regulate or otherwise infringe upon our right to bear arms.

But anti-gunners and state supremacists argue that the 2A intended to somehow limit the right.

.

 

[Foxfyre]

I am not a Hamiltonian.

But there is no historical evidence that Mr Hamilton wanted a massive centralized federal government

"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and
to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only
unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even
be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers
not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a
colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why
declare that things shall not be done which there is no power
to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of
the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by
which restrictions may be imposed?"

Federalist 84

.

Agreed. Hamilton was a classical liberal as much as any of the others. He just had a somewhat different idea of the scope of government and how strong a central government should be; but in the end, he was not that much different from his colleagues.

Hamilton had a good reasoned argument re the Bill of Rights and it did result in considerable debate and discussion. So much of the Constitution was hammered out by those great men who struggled to eliminate natural pitfalls while eliminating all concepts of a 'monarchy' and at the same time accomplishing the protections necessary for a people to govern themselves in peace. No easy feat. In the end, though they did not agree on every point, every signer of the Constitution compromised and accepted some components in the Constitution that he would have preferred to be different, But their collective effort gave us one of the most remarkable documents the world had ever seen.

The Bill of Rights was one of those areas of compromise. If those who had opposed it had not agreed to it, there likely would not have been a United States of America.

And The Bill of Rights has stood the test of time for two and a quarter centuries now.

Well not really.

For example, The Constitution provides no authority whatsoever for the federal government to regulate or otherwise infringe upon our right to bear arms.

But anti-gunners and state supremacists argue that the 2A intended to somehow limit the right.

.

The fact that the debates rage on, however, is not an indictment of the Constitution.

Does allowing a moment of silence at the beginning of the school day, during which some students will pray, violate the First Amendment? Or do libel and slander laws?

Does the right to bear arms include convicted felons? For my neighbor who gets drunk and disorderly every Saturday night to have a fully armed Sherman tank in his back yard? Or for me to have a nuclear weapon for self protection?

Does search and seizure require no inspection of passengers or their belongings who are using public transportation?

All these are legitimate topics for debate, thoughtful consideration, discussion, etc. And then there is the curious and perhaps least examined Ninth Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

We generally get around to doing the right thing or at least the best thing available to us, when people understand the purpose and intent of the U.S. Constitution. It is not the fault of the Constitution that some never learned the principles involved or dismiss them as irrelevent 223 years later or choose to ignore tham in favor of a different ideology.

It is our fault when we fail to teach those principles and/or we get lazy and fail to fight for them when they come under assault.

 

[Intense]

Why did the Founders, outside of Alexander Hamilton, subscribe to Limited Government, Enumerated Powers? .

I am not a Hamiltonian.

But there is no historical evidence that Mr Hamilton wanted a massive centralized federal government

"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and
to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only
unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even
be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers
not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a
colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why
declare that things shall not be done which there is no power
to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of
the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by
which restrictions may be imposed?"

Federalist 84

.

Actually there is allot of historical evidence. For one thing the Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde Syndrome (Pre Ratification V.S. Post Ratification Hamilton. I bet he planned to trump the Enumerated Powers concept with the General Welfare Clause from the start. Sneaky, sneaky, schemer from the start. The Alien and Sedition Acts. Here is a good one where his lust for power shines really bright.

Hamilton: The Constitutionality of the Bank of the United States, 1791

 

[Bfgrn]

There are very few Classic Liberals left. Today's Democratic Party is dominated by Socialists/Progressives. They're very comfortable championing total Government control of Citizens' lives. The term 'Classic Liberal' should be retired. They would now have to be called Libertarians or real Conservatives. And there are very few differences between Socialists/Progressives and Neocons. They both want the Government to control Citizens' lives. That's why i always laugh when i see Socialists/Progressives and Neocons arguing. What are they really arguing about? They're both Big Government Globalists in the end. Anyway, great post. Thanks Intense.

Agreed. Some want to replace Conscience First with a Permission Slip from Big Brother. Just from a Prophesy stand point, it is a warning. I prefer choosing a Representative to represent my Values in Government, rather than a Keeper. I am No One's Property, nor do I wish to have that kind of power over Anyone else.

I dsagree that there are very few classical liberals left though. I think the whole phenomenon of the Tea Party, 9/12ers, and similar groups is a great revival of the spirit of self governance that the Founders intended. And in state after state, they are making a difference. Who would have ever though Dick Lugar would lose his four-decades long seat in Indiana? That was purely through the effort of the Tea Party vote and it was by a fairly wide margin to boot.

I do agree that the few groups on the right who lobby the federal government to force whatever social policy on all the people are no better than progressives/liberals in that regard and they are the antithesis of the basis of classical liberalism. The Tea Partiers, et al, however do not do that. They may not have the term in their head, but they have the principles in their hearts. They are fiercely lobbying and working to restore classical liberalism in the national psyche and in the government.

What will sink that ship is the federal government moving more and more people into components of the nanny state. Free stuff is so addictive that some of the most hard care classical liberals can be entangled. And with roughly half the population already caught up in the syndrome, we are at the tipping point now. Which I believe make the 2012 election the most critical of my lifetime. Another four years of Obama and I believe more than half the people will be on some kind of government dole. And then it is all over but the post mortems.

Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
James M. Buchanan

You and the tea party are NOT liberals, classical or otherwise. You are the classical definition of the Pharisee. You worship wealth and assign all human virtues to wealth. You fully believe in a hierarchy where the wealthy rule and the common man is assigned serfdom. And because you assign virtue to the wealthy, those who are not wealthy need to be punished, so they will learn. You and they are far right wing radicals who have ZERO intelligence. Your minds are infested with strict authoritarian doctrine that poses the greatest threat to this country. The tea party are strict doctrinaires who have zero understanding of governing. It is either their way or they will use insurgency and obstruction to hold We, the People hostage.

Since the tea party took control of the GOP, the party has shifted even farther to the right than the right wing evangelicals took the party.

WHAT is the tea party agenda? To create a plutocracy and a vast waste land where the wealthy are given a free pass to dump their waste in our lakes and steams, poison the air we breath just so they can increase their wealth, even if it KILLS human fish and foul.

The current House of Representatives is the most anti-environment House in history. House Republican leaders have pushed through an astonishing 191 votes to weaken environmental protections.

House Republicans have repeatedly voted to undermine basic environmental protections that have existed for decades. They have voted to block actions to prevent air pollution; to strip the Environmental Protection Agency of authority to enforce water pollution standards; to halt efforts to address climate change; to stop the Department of the Interior from identifying lands suitable for wilderness designations; to allow oil and gas development off the coasts of Florida, California, and other states opposed to offshore drilling; and to slash funding for the Department of Energy, including funding to support renewable energy and energy efficiency, by more than 80%.

The House of Representatives averaged more than one anti-environmental vote for every day the House was in session in 2011. Of the 770 legislative roll call votes taken in the House this year, 22% – more than one out of every five – were votes to undermine environmental protection. During these roll calls, 94% of Republican members voted for the anti-environment position, while 86% of Democratic members voted for the pro-environment position.

Luke 16:13-15

13 “No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and mammon (money).”

14 The Pharisees, who loved money, heard all this and were sneering at Jesus.

15 He said to them, “You are the ones who justify yourselves in the eyes of man, but God knows your hearts. What is highly valuable in the eyes of man is detestable in God’s sight.

 

[Intense]

Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
James M. Buchanan

You and the tea party are NOT liberals, classical or otherwise. You are the classical definition of the Pharisee. You worship wealth and assign all human virtues to wealth. You fully believe in a hierarchy where the wealthy rule and the common man is assigned serfdom. And because you assign virtue to the wealthy, those who are not wealthy need to be punished, so they will learn. You and they are far right wing radicals who have ZERO intelligence. Your minds are infested with strict authoritarian doctrine that poses the greatest threat to this country. The tea party are strict doctrinaires who have zero understanding of governing. It is either their way or they will use insurgency and obstruction to hold We, the People hostage.

Since the tea party took control of the GOP, the party has shifted even farther to the right than the right wing evangelicals took the party.

WHAT is the tea party agenda? To create a plutocracy and a vast waste land where the wealthy are given a free pass to dump their waste in our lakes and steams, poison the air we breath just so they can increase their wealth, even if it KILLS human fish and foul.

The current House of Representatives is the most anti-environment House in history. House Republican leaders have pushed through an astonishing 191 votes to weaken environmental protections.

House Republicans have repeatedly voted to undermine basic environmental protections that have existed for decades. They have voted to block actions to prevent air pollution; to strip the Environmental Protection Agency of authority to enforce water pollution standards; to halt efforts to address climate change; to stop the Department of the Interior from identifying lands suitable for wilderness designations; to allow oil and gas development off the coasts of Florida, California, and other states opposed to offshore drilling; and to slash funding for the Department of Energy, including funding to support renewable energy and energy efficiency, by more than 80%.

The House of Representatives averaged more than one anti-environmental vote for every day the House was in session in 2011. Of the 770 legislative roll call votes taken in the House this year, 22% – more than one out of every five – were votes to undermine environmental protection. During these roll calls, 94% of Republican members voted for the anti-environment position, while 86% of Democratic members voted for the pro-environment position.

Luke 16:13-15

13 “No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and mammon (money).”

14 The Pharisees, who loved money, heard all this and were sneering at Jesus.

15 He said to them, “You are the ones who justify yourselves in the eyes of man, but God knows your hearts. What is highly valuable in the eyes of man is detestable in God’s sight.

I Worship God Alone, in Spirit and Truth. It's wrong of you to presume otherwise. I forgive you though, so don't beat yourself up over it. I'm into living within my means, Free Will, taking things one day at a time, and Live and let live. I'm Tea Party. You are only allowed 3 swings and misses, ..... next batter. You need to DE-Indoctrinate. You really are being silly here, you need to reexamine your goals. You are losing it.

 

[Foxfyre]

Why did the Founders, outside of Alexander Hamilton, subscribe to Limited Government, Enumerated Powers? .

I am not a Hamiltonian.

But there is no historical evidence that Mr Hamilton wanted a massive centralized federal government

"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and
to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only
unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even
be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers
not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a
colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why
declare that things shall not be done which there is no power
to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of
the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by
which restrictions may be imposed?"

Federalist 84

.

Actually there is allot of historical evidence. For one thing the Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde Syndrome (Pre Ratification V.S. Post Ratification Hamilton. I bet he planned to trump the Enumerated Powers concept with the General Welfare Clause from the start. Sneaky, sneaky, schemer from the start. The Alien and Sedition Acts. Here is a good one where his lust for power shines really bright.

Hamilton: The Constitutionality of the Bank of the United States, 1791

I guess I don't see Hamilton as much of a "villain" (term used very loosely here) as you do. While I lean strongly toward Jefferson's more pure classical liberalism so far as a central government was concerned, I can also appreciiate Hamilton's arguments for a government capable of fulfilling its constitutional responsibilities.

Jefferson's heart favored a much more loosely connected agrarian society and while he understood the need for a strong central government in foreign affairs, he didn't want it involved in much of anything else. Hamilton was more focused on urban mercantile interests and foreign trade. While Jefferson jealously guarded interests of states rights, Hamilton was focused on a central currency, the ability of the United States to borrow, extend credit, pay its bills, etc. and he saw a central bank as a component of that with his belief that many general clauses in the Constitution authorized Congress to "make all laws which shall be necessary and proper" for carrying out other powers specifically granted. (Jefferson strongly opposed a central bank on grounds that there was no authority given to the federal government to establish one.)

Ultimately Hamilton prevailed in that debate with Congress taking the side of the federalists. And it was a debate important to have.

History instructs us, however, that however that some slippery slope arguments are valid. To this day the modern day liberals look to Hamilton's 'general clause' interpretations as justifications for the increasing role of the federal government in all our lives, much of which has been to our detriment.

It is unfortunate that foresight is not always clear, or that could have been avoided.

 

[Bfgrn]

Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
James M. Buchanan

You and the tea party are NOT liberals, classical or otherwise. You are the classical definition of the Pharisee. You worship wealth and assign all human virtues to wealth. You fully believe in a hierarchy where the wealthy rule and the common man is assigned serfdom. And because you assign virtue to the wealthy, those who are not wealthy need to be punished, so they will learn. You and they are far right wing radicals who have ZERO intelligence. Your minds are infested with strict authoritarian doctrine that poses the greatest threat to this country. The tea party are strict doctrinaires who have zero understanding of governing. It is either their way or they will use insurgency and obstruction to hold We, the People hostage.

Since the tea party took control of the GOP, the party has shifted even farther to the right than the right wing evangelicals took the party.

WHAT is the tea party agenda? To create a plutocracy and a vast waste land where the wealthy are given a free pass to dump their waste in our lakes and steams, poison the air we breath just so they can increase their wealth, even if it KILLS human fish and foul.

The current House of Representatives is the most anti-environment House in history. House Republican leaders have pushed through an astonishing 191 votes to weaken environmental protections.

House Republicans have repeatedly voted to undermine basic environmental protections that have existed for decades. They have voted to block actions to prevent air pollution; to strip the Environmental Protection Agency of authority to enforce water pollution standards; to halt efforts to address climate change; to stop the Department of the Interior from identifying lands suitable for wilderness designations; to allow oil and gas development off the coasts of Florida, California, and other states opposed to offshore drilling; and to slash funding for the Department of Energy, including funding to support renewable energy and energy efficiency, by more than 80%.

The House of Representatives averaged more than one anti-environmental vote for every day the House was in session in 2011. Of the 770 legislative roll call votes taken in the House this year, 22% – more than one out of every five – were votes to undermine environmental protection. During these roll calls, 94% of Republican members voted for the anti-environment position, while 86% of Democratic members voted for the pro-environment position.

Luke 16:13-15

13 “No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and mammon (money).”

14 The Pharisees, who loved money, heard all this and were sneering at Jesus.

15 He said to them, “You are the ones who justify yourselves in the eyes of man, but God knows your hearts. What is highly valuable in the eyes of man is detestable in God’s sight.

I Worship God Alone, in Spirit and Truth. It's wrong of you to presume otherwise. I forgive you though, so don't beat yourself up over it. I'm into living within my means, Free Will, taking things one day at a time, and Live and let live. I'm Tea Party. You are only allowed 3 swings and misses, ..... next batter. You need to DE-Indoctrinate. You really are being silly here, you need to reexamine your goals. You are losing it.

Well Intense, you can ONLY speak for you. But the overwhelming FACTS are that the people in Washington who call themselves tea party, are authoritarian doctrinaires who demand that everyone live by THEIR world view, OR they will use insurgency and obstruction to hold We, the People hostage.

Barry Goldwater warned against the evangelicals in the GOP, the tea party is even MORE doctrinaire and extreme.

If we can't agree on protecting the environment, and protecting citizens who are unable to protect themselves, then we REALLY have a HUGE schism in America. And the tea party will LOSE.

"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the Republican party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
Barry Goldwater (R) – Late Senator & Father of the Conservative movement

 

[Foxfyre]

Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
James M. Buchanan

You and the tea party are NOT liberals, classical or otherwise. You are the classical definition of the Pharisee. You worship wealth and assign all human virtues to wealth. You fully believe in a hierarchy where the wealthy rule and the common man is assigned serfdom. And because you assign virtue to the wealthy, those who are not wealthy need to be punished, so they will learn. You and they are far right wing radicals who have ZERO intelligence. Your minds are infested with strict authoritarian doctrine that poses the greatest threat to this country. The tea party are strict doctrinaires who have zero understanding of governing. It is either their way or they will use insurgency and obstruction to hold We, the People hostage.

Since the tea party took control of the GOP, the party has shifted even farther to the right than the right wing evangelicals took the party.

WHAT is the tea party agenda? To create a plutocracy and a vast waste land where the wealthy are given a free pass to dump their waste in our lakes and steams, poison the air we breath just so they can increase their wealth, even if it KILLS human fish and foul.

The current House of Representatives is the most anti-environment House in history. House Republican leaders have pushed through an astonishing 191 votes to weaken environmental protections.

House Republicans have repeatedly voted to undermine basic environmental protections that have existed for decades. They have voted to block actions to prevent air pollution; to strip the Environmental Protection Agency of authority to enforce water pollution standards; to halt efforts to address climate change; to stop the Department of the Interior from identifying lands suitable for wilderness designations; to allow oil and gas development off the coasts of Florida, California, and other states opposed to offshore drilling; and to slash funding for the Department of Energy, including funding to support renewable energy and energy efficiency, by more than 80%.

The House of Representatives averaged more than one anti-environmental vote for every day the House was in session in 2011. Of the 770 legislative roll call votes taken in the House this year, 22% – more than one out of every five – were votes to undermine environmental protection. During these roll calls, 94% of Republican members voted for the anti-environment position, while 86% of Democratic members voted for the pro-environment position.

Luke 16:13-15

13 “No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and mammon (money).”

14 The Pharisees, who loved money, heard all this and were sneering at Jesus.

15 He said to them, “You are the ones who justify yourselves in the eyes of man, but God knows your hearts. What is highly valuable in the eyes of man is detestable in God’s sight.

I Worship God Alone, in Spirit and Truth. It's wrong of you to presume otherwise. I forgive you though, so don't beat yourself up over it. I'm into living within my means, Free Will, taking things one day at a time, and Live and let live. I'm Tea Party. You are only allowed 3 swings and misses, ..... next batter. You need to DE-Indoctrinate. You really are being silly here, you need to reexamine your goals. You are losing it.

Well Intense, you can ONLY speak for you. But the overwhelming FACTS are that the people in Washington who call themselves tea party, are authoritarian doctrinaires who demand that everyone live by THEIR world view, OR they will use insurgency and obstruction to hold We, the People hostage.

Barry Goldwater warned against the evangelicals in the GOP, the tea party is even MORE doctrinaire and extreme.

If we can't agree on protecting the environment, and protecting citizens who are unable to protect themselves, then we REALLY have a HUGE schism in America. And the tea party will LOSE.

"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the Republican party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
Barry Goldwater (R) – Late Senator & Father of the Conservative movement

Which only goes to show that so many on the left are so brainwashed they don't have a clue. There is not a shred of evangelicalism in Tea Party rhetoric or goals. But oh how those on the left want to make it into something like that because it is so much easier to attack than are the actual Tea Party goals that are classical liberal goals.

I wonder, however, how many hard core leftists are capable of being intellectually honest about that?

 

[Bfgrn]

I Worship God Alone, in Spirit and Truth. It's wrong of you to presume otherwise. I forgive you though, so don't beat yourself up over it. I'm into living within my means, Free Will, taking things one day at a time, and Live and let live. I'm Tea Party. You are only allowed 3 swings and misses, ..... next batter. You need to DE-Indoctrinate. You really are being silly here, you need to reexamine your goals. You are losing it.

Well Intense, you can ONLY speak for you. But the overwhelming FACTS are that the people in Washington who call themselves tea party, are authoritarian doctrinaires who demand that everyone live by THEIR world view, OR they will use insurgency and obstruction to hold We, the People hostage.

Barry Goldwater warned against the evangelicals in the GOP, the tea party is even MORE doctrinaire and extreme.

If we can't agree on protecting the environment, and protecting citizens who are unable to protect themselves, then we REALLY have a HUGE schism in America. And the tea party will LOSE.

"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the Republican party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
Barry Goldwater (R) – Late Senator & Father of the Conservative movement

Which only goes to show that so many on the left are so brainwashed they don't have a clue. There is not a shred of evangelicalism in Tea Party rhetoric or goals. But oh how those on the left want to make it into something like that because it is so much easier to attack than are the actual Tea Party goals that are classical liberal goals.

I wonder, however, how many hard core leftists are capable of being intellectually honest about that?

Seriously? AGAIN, you emote without any evidence??? THEN, you have the nerve to accuse the 'left' not being honest? WOW!!!

February 25, 2011 11:21AM
Evangelicals and Tea Party Overlap in Congress, Public

In July of 2010, Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) announced a new tea party caucus in the House of Representatives. Bachmann, who is active among both social conservatives and the tea party movement, lined up about 50 Representatives to join the group.

This caucus is more evangelical than the rest of the House. About 45 percent of the caucus attend an evangelical church, compared to 13 percent of others in the House. Another 30 percent are mainline Protestants, mostly of a largely Southern variety. Several Mormons are also part of the caucus.

There are no African-Americans or Jewish members. The caucus is less likely to include Catholics, with only 15 percent who are members of the caucus compared to 32 percent of those who are not.

Nearly all members of Congress express some religious affiliation. Most, however, do not advertise their faith. The members of the tea party caucus do, however, with 43 percent discussing their religious beliefs or membership on their House websites. This is over twice as many as non-members. Just 21 percent of other Representatives provide any mention of their religion.

The overlap between religiosity, evangelicalism, and the tea party is not limited to Congress. A new study by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life finds that those who agree with the Tea Party are also socially conservative and religious. Among the religious groups in America, evangelicals are the most supportive of the movement.

Despite its influence in national politics, many Americans remain unaware of the movement. Among evangelicals, nearly half (48 percent) had no opinion or had not heard of the Tea Party. But among those evangelicals that have an opinion on the Tea Party, 84 percent said that they agree with the movement. No other religious tradition comes close to this level of support for the movement. Dan Gilgoff has provided a summary of other traditions at CNN's Belief Blog.

The Pew study suggests that the mix of religion and the tea party movement in Congress is not an accident: nearly all of those who agreed with Christian conservatives also agreed with the tea party.

Pew found that 73 percent of those who agree with the “conservative Christian movement” had heard of the tea party. Of these, 95 percent agreed with the tea party movement.

more

 

[Foxfyre]

Well Intense, you can ONLY speak for you. But the overwhelming FACTS are that the people in Washington who call themselves tea party, are authoritarian doctrinaires who demand that everyone live by THEIR world view, OR they will use insurgency and obstruction to hold We, the People hostage.

Barry Goldwater warned against the evangelicals in the GOP, the tea party is even MORE doctrinaire and extreme.

If we can't agree on protecting the environment, and protecting citizens who are unable to protect themselves, then we REALLY have a HUGE schism in America. And the tea party will LOSE.

"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the Republican party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
Barry Goldwater (R) – Late Senator & Father of the Conservative movement

Which only goes to show that so many on the left are so brainwashed they don't have a clue. There is not a shred of evangelicalism in Tea Party rhetoric or goals. But oh how those on the left want to make it into something like that because it is so much easier to attack than are the actual Tea Party goals that are classical liberal goals.

I wonder, however, how many hard core leftists are capable of being intellectually honest about that?

Seriously? AGAIN, you emote without any evidence??? THEN, you have the nerve to accuse the 'left' not being honest? WOW!!!

February 25, 2011 11:21AM
Evangelicals and Tea Party Overlap in Congress, Public

In July of 2010, Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) announced a new tea party caucus in the House of Representatives. Bachmann, who is active among both social conservatives and the tea party movement, lined up about 50 Representatives to join the group.

This caucus is more evangelical than the rest of the House. About 45 percent of the caucus attend an evangelical church, compared to 13 percent of others in the House. Another 30 percent are mainline Protestants, mostly of a largely Southern variety. Several Mormons are also part of the caucus.

There are no African-Americans or Jewish members. The caucus is less likely to include Catholics, with only 15 percent who are members of the caucus compared to 32 percent of those who are not.

Nearly all members of Congress express some religious affiliation. Most, however, do not advertise their faith. The members of the tea party caucus do, however, with 43 percent discussing their religious beliefs or membership on their House websites. This is over twice as many as non-members. Just 21 percent of other Representatives provide any mention of their religion.

The overlap between religiosity, evangelicalism, and the tea party is not limited to Congress. A new study by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life finds that those who agree with the Tea Party are also socially conservative and religious. Among the religious groups in America, evangelicals are the most supportive of the movement.

Despite its influence in national politics, many Americans remain unaware of the movement. Among evangelicals, nearly half (48 percent) had no opinion or had not heard of the Tea Party. But among those evangelicals that have an opinion on the Tea Party, 84 percent said that they agree with the movement. No other religious tradition comes close to this level of support for the movement. Dan Gilgoff has provided a summary of other traditions at CNN's Belief Blog.

The Pew study suggests that the mix of religion and the tea party movement in Congress is not an accident: nearly all of those who agreed with Christian conservatives also agreed with the tea party.

Pew found that 73 percent of those who agree with the “conservative Christian movement” had heard of the tea party. Of these, 95 percent agreed with the tea party movement.

more

The fact that Christian conservatives are far more likely to be classical liberals than are modern day Chrsitian progressives/liberals is irrelevent to Tea Party goals. Almost all of the Founders embraced Christianity and believed that the nation would not survive unless Christian values and morals were embraced even as they were determined that the Church, by whatever name, would have no power to rule any more than would any monarch, dictator, or other titular head of state. The Founders were so religious that they held worship services in the chambers of Congress, yet no theocracy developed and those that were prevalent in some of the colonies had all ended by the end of the eighteenth century.

Again I wonder if anybody on the left, most especially the anti-Christian, anti-religious left, is able to make that distinction. The fact that many Christians embrace classical liberalism and therefore Tea Party goals does not extrapolate to the Tea Party embracing evangelical goals.

 

[Bfgrn]

Which only goes to show that so many on the left are so brainwashed they don't have a clue. There is not a shred of evangelicalism in Tea Party rhetoric or goals. But oh how those on the left want to make it into something like that because it is so much easier to attack than are the actual Tea Party goals that are classical liberal goals.

I wonder, however, how many hard core leftists are capable of being intellectually honest about that?

Seriously? AGAIN, you emote without any evidence??? THEN, you have the nerve to accuse the 'left' not being honest? WOW!!!

February 25, 2011 11:21AM
Evangelicals and Tea Party Overlap in Congress, Public

In July of 2010, Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) announced a new tea party caucus in the House of Representatives. Bachmann, who is active among both social conservatives and the tea party movement, lined up about 50 Representatives to join the group.

This caucus is more evangelical than the rest of the House. About 45 percent of the caucus attend an evangelical church, compared to 13 percent of others in the House. Another 30 percent are mainline Protestants, mostly of a largely Southern variety. Several Mormons are also part of the caucus.

There are no African-Americans or Jewish members. The caucus is less likely to include Catholics, with only 15 percent who are members of the caucus compared to 32 percent of those who are not.

Nearly all members of Congress express some religious affiliation. Most, however, do not advertise their faith. The members of the tea party caucus do, however, with 43 percent discussing their religious beliefs or membership on their House websites. This is over twice as many as non-members. Just 21 percent of other Representatives provide any mention of their religion.

The overlap between religiosity, evangelicalism, and the tea party is not limited to Congress. A new study by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life finds that those who agree with the Tea Party are also socially conservative and religious. Among the religious groups in America, evangelicals are the most supportive of the movement.

Despite its influence in national politics, many Americans remain unaware of the movement. Among evangelicals, nearly half (48 percent) had no opinion or had not heard of the Tea Party. But among those evangelicals that have an opinion on the Tea Party, 84 percent said that they agree with the movement. No other religious tradition comes close to this level of support for the movement. Dan Gilgoff has provided a summary of other traditions at CNN's Belief Blog.

The Pew study suggests that the mix of religion and the tea party movement in Congress is not an accident: nearly all of those who agreed with Christian conservatives also agreed with the tea party.

Pew found that 73 percent of those who agree with the “conservative Christian movement” had heard of the tea party. Of these, 95 percent agreed with the tea party movement.

more

The fact that Christian conservatives are far more likely to be classical liberals than are modern day Chrsitian progressives/liberals is irrelevent to Tea Party goals. Almost all of the Founders embraced Christianity and believed that the nation would not survive unless Christian values and morals were embraced even as they were determined that the Church, by whatever name, would have no power to rule any more than would any monarch, dictator, or other titular head of state. The Founders were so religious that they held worship services in the chambers of Congress, yet no theocracy developed and those that were prevalent in some of the colonies had all ended by the end of the eighteenth century.

Again I wonder if anybody on the left, most especially the anti-Christian, anti-religious left, is able to make that distinction. The fact that many Christians embrace classical liberalism and therefore Tea Party goals does not extrapolate to the Tea Party embracing evangelical goals.

Mumbo-jumbo BS.

Answer ONE question: Do the tea party or the evangelicals believe in compromise?

We are about to find out who is honest and who is not...

 

[Foxfyre]

Seriously? AGAIN, you emote without any evidence??? THEN, you have the nerve to accuse the 'left' not being honest? WOW!!!

February 25, 2011 11:21AM
Evangelicals and Tea Party Overlap in Congress, Public

In July of 2010, Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) announced a new tea party caucus in the House of Representatives. Bachmann, who is active among both social conservatives and the tea party movement, lined up about 50 Representatives to join the group.

This caucus is more evangelical than the rest of the House. About 45 percent of the caucus attend an evangelical church, compared to 13 percent of others in the House. Another 30 percent are mainline Protestants, mostly of a largely Southern variety. Several Mormons are also part of the caucus.

There are no African-Americans or Jewish members. The caucus is less likely to include Catholics, with only 15 percent who are members of the caucus compared to 32 percent of those who are not.

Nearly all members of Congress express some religious affiliation. Most, however, do not advertise their faith. The members of the tea party caucus do, however, with 43 percent discussing their religious beliefs or membership on their House websites. This is over twice as many as non-members. Just 21 percent of other Representatives provide any mention of their religion.

The overlap between religiosity, evangelicalism, and the tea party is not limited to Congress. A new study by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life finds that those who agree with the Tea Party are also socially conservative and religious. Among the religious groups in America, evangelicals are the most supportive of the movement.

Despite its influence in national politics, many Americans remain unaware of the movement. Among evangelicals, nearly half (48 percent) had no opinion or had not heard of the Tea Party. But among those evangelicals that have an opinion on the Tea Party, 84 percent said that they agree with the movement. No other religious tradition comes close to this level of support for the movement. Dan Gilgoff has provided a summary of other traditions at CNN's Belief Blog.

The Pew study suggests that the mix of religion and the tea party movement in Congress is not an accident: nearly all of those who agreed with Christian conservatives also agreed with the tea party.

Pew found that 73 percent of those who agree with the “conservative Christian movement” had heard of the tea party. Of these, 95 percent agreed with the tea party movement.

more

The fact that Christian conservatives are far more likely to be classical liberals than are modern day Chrsitian progressives/liberals is irrelevent to Tea Party goals. Almost all of the Founders embraced Christianity and believed that the nation would not survive unless Christian values and morals were embraced even as they were determined that the Church, by whatever name, would have no power to rule any more than would any monarch, dictator, or other titular head of state. The Founders were so religious that they held worship services in the chambers of Congress, yet no theocracy developed and those that were prevalent in some of the colonies had all ended by the end of the eighteenth century.

Again I wonder if anybody on the left, most especially the anti-Christian, anti-religious left, is able to make that distinction. The fact that many Christians embrace classical liberalism and therefore Tea Party goals does not extrapolate to the Tea Party embracing evangelical goals.

Mumbo-jumbo BS.

Answer ONE question: Do the tea party or the evangelicals believe in compromise?

We are about to find out who is honest and who is not...

The Tea Party does not concern itself with evangelical goals. Evangelicals, as evangelicals do not concern themselves with Tea Party goals.

And so far as compromise is concerned, it would depend on what is expected to be compromised. In many things yes. In other things no.

The Tea Party goals are simple and straight forward and the Tea Party is not willing to compromise on the basics:

1. Smaller, more effective, more efficient, less intrusive government that recognizes and protects individual liberties and unalienable rights and that takes no more of the people's resources than is absolutely essential to perform its mandated responsibilities.

2. A return to the Constitutional foundations as set forth by the Founders.

3. A free market economy with only as much regulation is necessary to prevent us doing economic or physical violence to each other. That would include only as much taxation as is necessary to perform the essential functions of government.

How that is all accomplished is negotiable. The principles themselves are not.

 

[Intense]

Which only goes to show that so many on the left are so brainwashed they don't have a clue. There is not a shred of evangelicalism in Tea Party rhetoric or goals. But oh how those on the left want to make it into something like that because it is so much easier to attack than are the actual Tea Party goals that are classical liberal goals.

I wonder, however, how many hard core leftists are capable of being intellectually honest about that?

Seriously? AGAIN, you emote without any evidence??? THEN, you have the nerve to accuse the 'left' not being honest? WOW!!!

February 25, 2011 11:21AM
Evangelicals and Tea Party Overlap in Congress, Public

In July of 2010, Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) announced a new tea party caucus in the House of Representatives. Bachmann, who is active among both social conservatives and the tea party movement, lined up about 50 Representatives to join the group.

This caucus is more evangelical than the rest of the House. About 45 percent of the caucus attend an evangelical church, compared to 13 percent of others in the House. Another 30 percent are mainline Protestants, mostly of a largely Southern variety. Several Mormons are also part of the caucus.

There are no African-Americans or Jewish members. The caucus is less likely to include Catholics, with only 15 percent who are members of the caucus compared to 32 percent of those who are not.

Nearly all members of Congress express some religious affiliation. Most, however, do not advertise their faith. The members of the tea party caucus do, however, with 43 percent discussing their religious beliefs or membership on their House websites. This is over twice as many as non-members. Just 21 percent of other Representatives provide any mention of their religion.

The overlap between religiosity, evangelicalism, and the tea party is not limited to Congress. A new study by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life finds that those who agree with the Tea Party are also socially conservative and religious. Among the religious groups in America, evangelicals are the most supportive of the movement.

Despite its influence in national politics, many Americans remain unaware of the movement. Among evangelicals, nearly half (48 percent) had no opinion or had not heard of the Tea Party. But among those evangelicals that have an opinion on the Tea Party, 84 percent said that they agree with the movement. No other religious tradition comes close to this level of support for the movement. Dan Gilgoff has provided a summary of other traditions at CNN's Belief Blog.

The Pew study suggests that the mix of religion and the tea party movement in Congress is not an accident: nearly all of those who agreed with Christian conservatives also agreed with the tea party.

Pew found that 73 percent of those who agree with the “conservative Christian movement” had heard of the tea party. Of these, 95 percent agreed with the tea party movement.

more

The fact that Christian conservatives are far more likely to be classical liberals than are modern day Chrsitian progressives/liberals is irrelevent to Tea Party goals. Almost all of the Founders embraced Christianity and believed that the nation would not survive unless Christian values and morals were embraced even as they were determined that the Church, by whatever name, would have no power to rule any more than would any monarch, dictator, or other titular head of state. The Founders were so religious that they held worship services in the chambers of Congress, yet no theocracy developed and those that were prevalent in some of the colonies had all ended by the end of the eighteenth century.

Again I wonder if anybody on the left, most especially the anti-Christian, anti-religious left, is able to make that distinction. The fact that many Christians embrace classical liberalism and therefore Tea Party goals does not extrapolate to the Tea Party embracing evangelical goals.

We need to respect freedom of association be it the Tea Party or OWS. What is within the Law, anyway. You can't have it both ways. We don't always have to agree, but, we need to better tolerate the lawful actions and associations of others. That's just how it is.

 

[Intense]

The fact that Christian conservatives are far more likely to be classical liberals than are modern day Chrsitian progressives/liberals is irrelevent to Tea Party goals. Almost all of the Founders embraced Christianity and believed that the nation would not survive unless Christian values and morals were embraced even as they were determined that the Church, by whatever name, would have no power to rule any more than would any monarch, dictator, or other titular head of state. The Founders were so religious that they held worship services in the chambers of Congress, yet no theocracy developed and those that were prevalent in some of the colonies had all ended by the end of the eighteenth century.

Again I wonder if anybody on the left, most especially the anti-Christian, anti-religious left, is able to make that distinction. The fact that many Christians embrace classical liberalism and therefore Tea Party goals does not extrapolate to the Tea Party embracing evangelical goals.

Mumbo-jumbo BS.

Answer ONE question: Do the tea party or the evangelicals believe in compromise?

We are about to find out who is honest and who is not...

The Tea Party does not concern itself with evangelical goals. Evangelicals, as evangelicals do not concern themselves with Tea Party goals.

And so far as compromise is concerned, it would depend on what is expected to be compromised. In many things yes. In other things no.

The Tea Party goals are simple and straight forward and the Tea Party is not willing to compromise on the basics:

1. Smaller, more effective, more efficient, less intrusive government that recognizes and protects individual liberties and unalienable rights and that takes no more of the people's resources than is absolutely essential to perform its mandated responsibilities.

2. A return to the Constitutional foundations as set forth by the Founders.

3. A free market economy with only as much regulation is necessary to prevent us doing economic or physical violence to each other. That would include only as much taxation as is necessary to perform the essential functions of government.

How that is all accomplished is negotiable. The principles themselves are not.

I don't think Principle should be compromised, Left or Right. Sometimes we each have a unique perspective that needs to be heard, even if it only acts as a warning. Argument stands or falls on it's own merit. Yes, it gets weighed and measured, though some will have more weight than others. There is jistified compromise, unjustified compromise, and being out voted.

 

[Foxfyre]

Mumbo-jumbo BS.

Answer ONE question: Do the tea party or the evangelicals believe in compromise?

We are about to find out who is honest and who is not...

The Tea Party does not concern itself with evangelical goals. Evangelicals, as evangelicals do not concern themselves with Tea Party goals.

And so far as compromise is concerned, it would depend on what is expected to be compromised. In many things yes. In other things no.

The Tea Party goals are simple and straight forward and the Tea Party is not willing to compromise on the basics:

1. Smaller, more effective, more efficient, less intrusive government that recognizes and protects individual liberties and unalienable rights and that takes no more of the people's resources than is absolutely essential to perform its mandated responsibilities.

2. A return to the Constitutional foundations as set forth by the Founders.

3. A free market economy with only as much regulation is necessary to prevent us doing economic or physical violence to each other. That would include only as much taxation as is necessary to perform the essential functions of government.

How that is all accomplished is negotiable. The principles themselves are not.

I don't think Principle should be compromised, Left or Right. Sometimes we each have a unique perspective that needs to be heard, even if it only acts as a warning. Argument stands or falls on it's own merit. Yes, it gets weighed and measured, though some will have more weight than others. There is jistified compromise, unjustified compromise, and being out voted.

Exactly. The principle might be that everybody needs to pay their fair, proportional share so as to have an equal stake in the consequences of who they vote for and whatever law is passed. A Tea Partier might see that as nonnegotiable.

The system, however, to achieve that fair, proportional share, whether by a percentage of income or a national sales tax or usage taxes or whatever, is negotiable and subject to compromise.

 

[Intense]

The Tea Party does not concern itself with evangelical goals. Evangelicals, as evangelicals do not concern themselves with Tea Party goals.

And so far as compromise is concerned, it would depend on what is expected to be compromised. In many things yes. In other things no.

The Tea Party goals are simple and straight forward and the Tea Party is not willing to compromise on the basics:

1. Smaller, more effective, more efficient, less intrusive government that recognizes and protects individual liberties and unalienable rights and that takes no more of the people's resources than is absolutely essential to perform its mandated responsibilities.

2. A return to the Constitutional foundations as set forth by the Founders.

3. A free market economy with only as much regulation is necessary to prevent us doing economic or physical violence to each other. That would include only as much taxation as is necessary to perform the essential functions of government.

How that is all accomplished is negotiable. The principles themselves are not.

I don't think Principle should be compromised, Left or Right. Sometimes we each have a unique perspective that needs to be heard, even if it only acts as a warning. Argument stands or falls on it's own merit. Yes, it gets weighed and measured, though some will have more weight than others. There is jistified compromise, unjustified compromise, and being out voted.

Exactly. The principle might be that everybody needs to pay their fair, proportional share so as to have an equal stake in the consequences of who they vote for and whatever law is passed. A Tea Partier might see that as nonnegotiable.

The system, however, to achieve that fair, proportional share, whether by a percentage of income or a national sales tax or usage taxes or whatever, is negotiable and subject to compromise.

Another compromise would be the size of the measure taken. American Federalism was based on the concept of baby steps, small scale, work out the kinks as you progress. Imagine the amount of wasted money in product recalls because of poor field testing. The same hold for Government programs, be it giving out Air Conditioners that end up in Pawn Shops, or handing out CD's and CD players, to promote Classical Music, when the public would be better served with air time on Public Radio. We do spend allot of hard earned money on silly shit. Who is trying to please who? Who is related to who? It's always something. The question is, Are these Diversions deliberate, or just misguided?

 

[Bfgrn]

The fact that Christian conservatives are far more likely to be classical liberals than are modern day Chrsitian progressives/liberals is irrelevent to Tea Party goals. Almost all of the Founders embraced Christianity and believed that the nation would not survive unless Christian values and morals were embraced even as they were determined that the Church, by whatever name, would have no power to rule any more than would any monarch, dictator, or other titular head of state. The Founders were so religious that they held worship services in the chambers of Congress, yet no theocracy developed and those that were prevalent in some of the colonies had all ended by the end of the eighteenth century.

Again I wonder if anybody on the left, most especially the anti-Christian, anti-religious left, is able to make that distinction. The fact that many Christians embrace classical liberalism and therefore Tea Party goals does not extrapolate to the Tea Party embracing evangelical goals.

Mumbo-jumbo BS.

Answer ONE question: Do the tea party or the evangelicals believe in compromise?

We are about to find out who is honest and who is not...

The Tea Party does not concern itself with evangelical goals. Evangelicals, as evangelicals do not concern themselves with Tea Party goals.

And so far as compromise is concerned, it would depend on what is expected to be compromised. In many things yes. In other things no.

The Tea Party goals are simple and straight forward and the Tea Party is not willing to compromise on the basics:

1. Smaller, more effective, more efficient, less intrusive government that recognizes and protects individual liberties and unalienable rights and that takes no more of the people's resources than is absolutely essential to perform its mandated responsibilities.

2. A return to the Constitutional foundations as set forth by the Founders.

3. A free market economy with only as much regulation is necessary to prevent us doing economic or physical violence to each other. That would include only as much taxation as is necessary to perform the essential functions of government.

How that is all accomplished is negotiable. The principles themselves are not.

A prominent Republican disagrees with you:


Hagel: Reagan wouldn't identify with today's GOP

The Republican Party has drifted so far to the right and become so partisan in recent years that President Ronald Reagan wouldn't even want to be a part of it, former Nebraska GOP senator Chuck Hagel told The Cable.

Reagan wanted to do away with nuclear weapons, raised taxes, made deals with congressional Democrats, sought compromises and consensus to fix problems, and surrounded himself with moderates as well as Republican hard-liners, Hagel noted. None of that is characterized by the current GOP leadership, he said. In his eyes, the rise of the Tea Party and the influx of new GOP lawmakers in Congress have driven the party away from common sense and consensus-based solutions.

"Reagan wouldn't identify with this party. There's a streak of intolerance in the Republican Party today that scares people. Intolerance is a very dangerous thing in a society because it always leads to a tragic ending," he said. "Ronald Reagan was never driven by ideology. He was a conservative but he was a practical conservative. He wanted limited government but he used government and he used it many times. And he would work with the other party."

"Now the Republican Party is in the hands of the right, I would say the extreme right, more than ever before," said Hagel. "You've got a Republican Party that is having difficulty facing up to the fact that if you look at what happened during the first 8 years of the century, it was under Republican direction."

George W. Bush started two wars while cutting taxes, added an unfunded prescription drug mandate, and ran up the deficit, but today's GOP leaders can't reconcile that history with their agenda today, Hagel noted.

"The Republican Party is dealing with this schizophrenia. It was the Republican leadership that got us into this mess," he said. "If Nixon or Eisenhower were alive today, they would be run out of the party."

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/05/11/hagel_reagan_wouldn_t_identify_with_today_s_gophttp://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/05/11/hagel_reagan_wouldn_t_identify_with_today_s_gop

 

[Contumacious]

"Now the Republican Party is in the hands of the right, I would say the extreme right, more than ever before," said Hagel. "

The truth of the matter is that there are only 2 parties in America. The Libertarians and the Welfare/Warfare Party. The GOP vs Democrats is a false dichotomy .

There are state supremacists - ie, supporters of the welfare/warfare state in both the GOP and Democrats. The Republicans want their candidate to acquire power and rule in the name of god - the democrats demand that their standard bearer rule in the name of karl Marx. But BOTH seek tyranny.

.