Posted on 02/27/2011 3:51:37 AM PST by RogerFGay
I can't help but notice that the new wave of Tea Party Republicans, said to be on probation until they've proven themselves, have quickly circled their wagons to defend the established RINO culture. To make the point, we might as well start with the extremely popular young senator Rand Paul. But if you're paying attention, you too will notice the “business as usual” talking point repeated by many others.On February 24, 2011, Senator Paul was interviewed by David Letterman. Here is the excerpt that this article addresses.
Letterman: “In this day and age, what does it mean if you're a member of the Republican Party? What are the precepts? What do we stand for?”
Paul: “Well, we wanted to mean something. When I ran, I said the Republican Party is an empty vessel unless we imbue it with values. What I mean by that is kind of what the Tea Party says. You gotta believe in something. I think during many of the Bush years we became just like the Democrats. We could spend money just as fast as the Democrats could and we ran up the debt and that was a problem for me. I thought really that government needs to live within its means.”
Letterman: “Live within its means. So that's the headline for the Republican Party. If you're a Republican, you stand for fiscally responsible government, first and foremost. Is that right?”
Paul: “I think so, and I think that unifies a lot of people.”
Letterman: “And what about the Tea Party. Does that overlap with the Republican precept?”
Paul: “Yeah, and the difference is though the Tea Party … [will] tell you if you don't vote correctly or if you vote with the Republicans when they're voting to bankrupt the country, we'll bring you home too. They're not very shy about it.”
My question: Where's the Constitution – the one that enforces limited government and individual rights?
Let's review. There are three major kinds of conservatives competing to control US politics; social, political, and fiscal.
Social conservatives have proven just as politically dangerous as social liberals. Both favor arbitrary increases in government power and the use of force to intrude upon individual freedom. Both have contributed equally to the collapse of Constitutional rule.
American political conservatives are basically the modern version of classic liberals and the last actual defenders of Constitutional rule in the United States. There must be a structured relationship between government and the people that does not allow arbitrary government intrusion.
Fiscal conservatives are politically equivalent to fiscal liberals. There are no set rules that limit government involvement in anything and everything, just political preferences. They are also often just as much in favor of more government and more spending. If a pork-barrel scheme is promoted as an “investment” of public money that will eventually reduce spending, self-described fiscal conservatives are just as quick to jump on the band wagon as liberals, no matter how weak the argument that more spending equals savings. Over the past three decades, they have frequently voted in favor of arbitrary increases in government power to suit their agenda. They also tend to ally with social conservatives in order to win elections. In one major scam, they pretended arbitrary federal intrusion into marriage and family law would save taxpayer dollars by reducing poverty. Not only did the welfare budget skyrocket as a result, the institution of marriage was destroyed and took out fundamental individual rights with it.
Rand Paul is misleading when he equates fiscal conservative rhetoric with imbuing values in an empty vessel. Fiscal conservatism isn't values, it's a set of relative actions taken in context. We are once again being told to accept a government of people and not of laws. Paul and other new Republicans are not presenting a reformed Republican image. They're reselling the old one, and our experience already tells us that doesn't work and why. Fiscal conservatives do not imbue fundamental rules in the relationship between government and the people in their empty vessel.
Fiscal conservatism is a set of relative actions taken in context. It is not a set of values.
Video link - Rand Paul on Letterman, Feb. 24, 2011
Your link went to a liberal website attacking Gay largely for his writings against AGW propaganda - and also belittling American conservatives in general. Not something we want to give linkage to.
I have no idea. I don’t have administrative authority here and haven’t heard anything about posting problems or removals.
I read the POPS vs Gardner summary, though your link didn't work. It seems it was about divorce more than marriage. I guess the core of "social conservatism" would be strongly against divorce in the first place, and strongly for monogamy. So , to say that "social conservatism" "did more to destroy marriage than anyone else" indicates that you're approaching from a different direction. In fact "social conservatism" is one one of the bedrocks upon which the Constitution was founded. Let me play "Kreskin," or however you spell the Johnny Carson character-- you , or a very close friend, got beat up in court over custody and child support issues, and you now live in Sweden to be outside of the jurisdiction
Why not show some real balls and examine the natural born citizen issue with as much fervor? You don’t need to take a side just report on all of the facts.
Like the March 4th USSC hearing, the Larkin case.
The conclusion is based on actual political history - not a loosely constructed theory. The Reagan administration promoted “government enforcement of personal responsibility” - a pretty obvious oxymoron that started me on the path of understanding the level of stupidity involved in politics. People whose political views are steered by socially conservative values jumped on the band-wagon in droves. Divorce and marriage law is the same thing. It’s also called family law and was previously a state issue (as the Constitution would have it) under “civil law.” More than that, the USSC had previously defined marriage as a “sacred, private institution.” The POPS case changed that by redefining marriage and family issues as “social policy.” I guess I’ll have to find another link to the POPS case.
I didn’t accuse him of having it pulled. I was asking about his residential status. A private post to me would have sufficed by you or him.
Is THAT a fact?
Perhaps we're talking of two distinct documents because the USC I'm familiar w/ contains no such requirement.
The USC is not a suicide pact that requires us to destroy the social fabric in the name of "fairness". If you do not understand the foundational nature of heterosexual marriage and its necessity for the maintenance of society then I'm afraid that you are a dunderhead and that any further argument is pointless.
My balls aren’t real?
Who cares? Answer the question about your residency guy. Why won't you say yes I reside in the states or no I don't.
I was an expert witness in P.O.P.S. - a scientist who created the most complete theoretical child support decision model in the world. http://isr.nu/cs/index.htm
No doubt you made some good points re Bentley, but I think you’re riding your cause into battle rather than a more comprehensive principle.
yep
ping
When I’m asked, “What defines a Conservative”, my first item is, “One who believes in personal responsibility”.
I was waiting for him to say something about that.
You really have to learn to refer to Leftwingtards by their correct name ~ which NEVER has the word Republican in it.
McCain still isn't a RINO ~ never was. He's stuck dealing with LBJ's agenda. It's totally out of synch with the time, but you'll find his position is absolutely identical to that of Jerry Ford and Richard Nixon at that time on almost every Democrat initiative.
And if you want to denounce Nixon as a RINO, go ahead and we'll hoot you off the stage.
A semantic argument trying to replace substance? I’ve never seen that in a political discussion before. (lol) RINO can refer to any politician who uses the Republican name brand but doesn’t adhere to conservative principles. Having previously been a Democrat and switching to the Republican Party name brand for political convenience (like union leader Ronald Reagan for example) is not required.
That doesn't work for a wide variety of reasons ~ one of which is that ALL Conservatives aren't Republicans, and another that ALL Republicans aren't Conservatives.
It's also impermissible to confound TEA Party with REPUBLICAN Party, and vice versa.
Oh, is that my problem? Everyone was waiting for the judgment to be handed down. I suppose I should click over to CNN and see how they spin it now.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.