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
But the evidence presented here to back up the claims that he is coddling establishment RINOs is asinine. As is the claim that fiscal conservatism runs against the Constitution. The author of this screed appears incapable of basic logic, and is just running around saying "Because I SAID so!"
That is the hallmark of some liberal MSM pinhead, not a conservative. A conservative should be able to defend his arguments coherently.
LOL! Sheesh - Desperate RINO alert!
Everyone’s a RINO except for me and thee - and I’m not too sure about thee.
Aaah-huh! Tell a big lie and then back it up with quotes from the Bible ... you know where you’re going when you die.
"Social conservatives have proven just as politically dangerous as social liberals"
Really? Are you saying that the systemic destruction of marriage, the wholesale slaughter of abortion, and the complete invalidation of any and all sexual inhibitions have created the same political damage as what...the Salem Witch trials?
Sewing giant red "A's on all adultresses
....stoning heretics?
My simple, unobtuse point is that w/o a moral foundation our society, regardless of economics, will founder and that creating a dichotomy w/i the conservative movement based upon boogeymen is a disservice to our shared goal of a limited republic.
Hmmm...Rand is channeling Tug McGraw? ;-)
That’s the spirit! Those who don’t question, know nothing and never will. I defended the Tea Party movement, but now the sheeple are snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. What they thought were their people are quickly being corrupted (whether or not they were to begin with - wouldn’t be the first time people misrepresented themselves to get elected) .. but they just want to believe that the job is done and everything is perfect now.
You might want to review the previous posts for responses I’ve given to this question already. Social conservatives did more to destroy marriage than anyone else - it’s a fact. Now they’re working to make sure it doesn’t get fixed.
So yet again, because you claim it, it must be so.
I can't recall the last time I've seen this level of arrogance on FR, other than from short-lived liberal trolls.
You apparently feel no obligation to support your opinions with facts and citations.
No really. I’m sure I responded to the question - more than once. It’s a fact.
Fiscal conservatism is a way to use the word “conservative” without saying what you mean. Foreign policy is an example. He could be against war because it costs money, or for it because it’s a necessary investment. He could be nationalistic to keep jobs in the country or a New World Order fanatic to promote trade. Like I say in the article, fiscal conservatism is a set of actions taken in context - not a set of values.
You respond by saying it's a fact. That does not therefore make it a fact. I could say you are a Martian, and that's a fact. Does that mean you are a Martian? No.
But I guess that's lost on you.
BTW, me claiming you to be a Martian would only be slightly less absurd than some of the stuff you have claimed on this thread.
If you’re going to question your own existence and whether people are actually posting comments or it’s just your imagination; I’d prefer you choose another place to do it.
If you are just going to babble incoherently, I’d prefer you find another place to do it.
At this point I am willing to give him a chance. He isn't a career politician like his dad (so far) owns his own business and seems to be supportive of the Tea Party movement. He is a newbie and having been under the MSM glare, has made some mistakes. Like Sarah Palin, McDonnell etc.
But the evidence presented here to back up the claims that he is coddling establishment RINOs is asinine. As is the claim that fiscal conservatism runs against the Constitution. The author of this screed appears incapable of basic logic, and is just running around saying "Because I SAID so!"
Totally agree. You made specific points, using his own language and his condescending arrogance won't allow him to admit his logic is flawed. Not only your posts but several others.
I am not as well spoken as you but you make a lot of sense to me!
I am too. He did distance himself somewhat from his dad during the campaign on key issues such as foreign and national security policy - but the proof is what he does in office. So far, he hasn't done anything to give himself a black mark - so far, so good.
I am not as well spoken as you but you make a lot of sense to me!
Thanks for the kind words, but you did just fine yourself in that regard.
I see my post was removed. Strike a nerve?
Uh oh....I think he took his ball and went home.
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.