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
Now come on! You’ve got nothin’ but repeating the talking points. It’s Bush’s fault? Maybe you’re in the wrong forum. By the time Bush became president, there was no more Constitution and no restraint on government. The New World Order thing was in full swing. It took some time to get to that point. Now you’re arguing with the RINOs to stay on the same road.
But I think this thread is going off the road when it starts identifying Fiscal Conservatives as RINOs, and Social Conservatives as RINOs, and Political Conservatives as RINOs, and Libertarians as RINOs, ..........
We really gotta' watch it ~ and get back to some basics here.
First off RINO meant a Democrat we latched onto and ran in districts where we couldn't gain a victory using a regular Republican.
RINO never had an ideological cachet ~ just a political purpose ~ called WINNING.
And as I've said many times we have too many Republicans around who don't know how to win, and who, when they win anyway, do not feel comfortable with winning.
To be a winner you must first accept the fact that YOU WON, and take that victory and get everything you possibly can ~ just reach out and take all the political power, do the social legislation, and save the country by getting it fiscally under control.
Sitting around calling each other and everyone a RINO is stupid!
One last point. Please show where I have said that.
Hint: you can't.
You are a legend in your own mind.
Rand isnt a RINO....he’s a radical libertarian who pals around with traitors.
I am as capable of becoming irritated by social and even fiscal conservatives as anyone, for, like progressives, they are easily led from the path of freedom by their causes.
Your argument is backward. I would have to assume more than what is written to reach the conclusion that you are basing it on more than the Letterman exchange.
As I said I make no comment on the content, you may well be right, I have not followed Paul.
Argument already presented: Rand Paul defines the same road. You’re in favor. It’s just that simple.
**First off RINO meant a Democrat we latched onto **
funny, I’ve never heard that definition before. But Ok..
Yes McLAME is a RINO in that he’s a registered Republican that acts like a Democrat. He’s a poor brainless SOP that unfortunately left his brains in N. Vietnam.
As for the rest of your little tantrum
POTT MEET MR. KETTLE
"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."
Where is this true? This is a tired libertarian talking point w/o any touch point to actual conservative positions.
What drives libertarians to drive a wedge through a conservative coalition that is gaining momentum? If it is the agnostism/atheism of Randian Objectivism, which I suspect, then it needs to be held up and exposed for what it is.
Our republic is built upon a profound appreciation for Divine Providence, without that we have no rights that cannot be taken away. All of the revolutions since our own that have ignored God have ended in dismal tyrany .
Those who are too PC to read history accurately will be of no help to us.
I frequently blog at a very Paul (Ron and Rand) intense blog site. This article was actually a response to some of the Paul worship going on there. Worshiping a politician - any politician - (and yes, I mean Ronald Reagan too) - is just plain wrong.
And you have failed to defend that argument. To the contray, I have pointed out that what you have presented to defend that argument actually does the opposite. Rand Paul said that if the RINOs keep spending, the Tea Party will primary them next opportunity. That does not sound like a defense of RINOs to anyone with two functioning neurons to rub together.
You are so arrogant that you think that just because you have made the claim, it is therefore true. You're a joke, and a bad one at that.
Why post here, the site has values not congruent with yours, do you make your arguments on Kos also ?
WOW! What drives you to twist such a straight-forward and relatively obvious point into such obtuse metaphysical theory?
LOL! That wasn’t even a nice try.
It’s a really simple argument - just a proper logical statement of obvious fact. There is no need for further defense. When I comment further, I’m just trying to help you to get it.
You're too dumb to realize that your argument is not simple, it is contradictory. Later, moron.
The writer is misleading his readers and he knows it. Posting it here to see if he can pimp hits to his article. The writer is no friend to conservatives. My guess is at best he’s a Bush, McCain, Rove republican.
A lie from Hell.
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.
For this fool: "individual freedom" and "Constitutional rule" = child sacrifice.
Jeremiah 2:34
Also in thy skirts is found the blood of the souls of the poor innocents: I have not found it by secret search, but upon all these.
Jeremiah 2:8
The priests said not, Where is the LORD? and they that handle the law knew me not: the pastors also transgressed against me, and the prophets prophesied by Baal, and walked after things that do not profit.
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.