Skip to comments.
The Relationships Between Republicans And Conservatives (Cathryn Crawford)
Washington Dispatch ^
| October 31, 2003
| Cathryn Crawford
Posted on 10/31/2003 8:00:17 AM PST by Scenic Sounds
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160, 161-180, 181-200, 201-218 next last
To: honeygrl; Dane; Scenic Sounds
honeygrl
So what do you disagree with in #68 specifically? (other than your dislike for tpaine)
______________________________________
Uh no self proclaimed Queen bee. All I was trying to convey is that when you all go into your micro machinations and proclaim your superiority, you turn people off, IMO.
154 -dane-
Notice that our dano-boy can't even answer your question, except to babble his nonsense about "micro machinations and proclaiming superiority".
-- The simple truth, - dane's one of the many so-called conservatives here on FR "who advocates that the Constitution should be ignored or evaded", --- but lacks the guts to actually say so.
161
posted on
10/31/2003 12:29:49 PM PST
by
tpaine
(I'm trying to be 'Mr Nice Guy', but Arnie won, & politics as usual lost. Yo!)
To: Scenic Sounds
"As the GOP moves closer to the center, there will be a day when conservatives must decide whether the Republican Party is still the party that represents them best; and if they conclude that it is not, they will have to find an alternative." Well stated and my experience, as, after 32 years (16 election cycles), I could no longer support the GOP political machine. I was not naive enough to accept that any third party was going to go anywhere at the national level in the limited time I have left on this planet, so I opted to re-register, for voting, with "Party Affiliation - NONE".
In the main, on election day, the GOP candidate eventually gets my vote as I am staunchly anit-Democrat. And from time to time as a GOP candidate that at least expouses "conservative" (as defined in the artilce above) values I might even contribute to his personal campaign chest. But the days of my un-questionable support with affiliation, time as volunteer party worker, and money for the national GOP machine are gone, and I fear not to return.
I don't push my thoughts on others, but I can say it was quite liberatiing to vote in the last two election cycles without "party" affiliation.
My personal view of the current GOP machine and a vast majority of their elected representatives is that the GOP today has become of the party of and for "compassionate ModeRATs" and is not even remotely "conservative" nor holds many of the stated conservative values.
One of my conservative values is that others' judgements are as equally of value to them as mine are to me. Of course around FR these days "conservatism" has been translated into political power for the GOP where no values are sacred or etched into stone.
Sad.
162
posted on
10/31/2003 12:42:39 PM PST
by
ImpBill
("America! ... Where are you now?")
To: tpaine
You know, you may be onto something there. I'm disappointed that the best personal insult he could come up with for me was "self proclaimed Queen bee" though.
163
posted on
10/31/2003 12:45:50 PM PST
by
honeygrl
(All of the above is JUST MY OPINION)
To: Maelstrom
"Conservatism isn't a reflective term."In theory, no. In actuality, it's measured against the liberals (prescription drugs, for example -- nothing conservative about it).
To: Maelstrom
Partisanship has saved this country. I disagree.
Partisanship, or factionalism, establishes an us versus them mentality where the strength of one's argument or the good one intends to do with that argument means nothing compared to the other guy losing. Partisanship encourages a cult of personality; a demonization or at the very least, a dehumanization of one's opponents, who happen to be one's countrymen. I don't think much good emerges out of conflict after conflict after conflict, and as a matter of fact, you can probably find as the source of much government bloat, redundancy, and sheer waste a Democrat's determination to stop a Republican, or a Republican's determination to stomp a Democrat.
To: CyberCowboy777
Thanks for posting Mr. Kirk's list of conservative principles. ;-)
166
posted on
10/31/2003 12:59:35 PM PST
by
Scenic Sounds
(Me caigo a mis rodillas y hablo a las estrellas de plata. "¿Qué misterios usted está encubriendo?")
To: tpaine; Dane
-- The simple truth, - dane's one of the many so-called conservatives here on FR "who advocates that the Constitution should be ignored or evaded", --- but lacks the guts to actually say so.LOL. In fairness, I think we should let Dane decide if he wishes to advocate that the Constitution be ignored or evaded. I don't think he wishes to do that.
Your contribution, tpaine (and it's not a small one, in my view), is that you consistently insist that Constitutional issues be considered when public issues are discussed. I'm sure that you find both people who agree with you and who disagree with you about some of the important nuances of Constitutional construction, but I think that most everyone around here will agree with you that we must always be mindful of the limits placed upon us by the Constitution.
You do a great job of keeping us honest, tpaine. ;-)
167
posted on
10/31/2003 1:14:54 PM PST
by
Scenic Sounds
(Me caigo a mis rodillas y hablo a las estrellas de plata. "¿Qué misterios usted está encubriendo?")
To: Cathryn Crawford
Not bad. But those issues dearest to conservatives will never be achieved because the democratic state is an inherently flawed organization, whether federal, state, or local. Only a pure private property economy based on non-monopolistic organizations can achieve the goals of conservatism.
168
posted on
10/31/2003 1:15:43 PM PST
by
ValenB4
(How do you make a hormone? By not paying.)
To: Scenic Sounds; Cathryn Crawford
I thought it relevant to the topic - especially to the debate over Ideals and Principles.
I see the political spectrum as one part of the Conservative mind. Politics is but one color of an overall worldview.
One can be Conservative without thinking that the Government must enforce the degree of social order that one may hold.
I am a Conservative libertarian. The GOP is at once an ally, a benign force and a enemy. But like a wayward family member it has not gone so far as to warrant total banishment from my life.
I for one will vote for Bush in '04 and fight for limited Government, I readily admit that sometimes those two agendas oppose each other.
169
posted on
10/31/2003 1:19:27 PM PST
by
CyberCowboy777
(After taking several readings, I'm surprised to find my mind still fairly sound.)
To: Cathryn Crawford
Hook Em Horns!
Jon Alvarez
Class of 1990
To: robertpaulsen
Republicanism or Republican conservatism is relative.
Pure Conservatism itself is a cast worldview based on simple logic.
171
posted on
10/31/2003 1:26:08 PM PST
by
CyberCowboy777
(After taking several readings, I'm surprised to find my mind still fairly sound.)
To: jmc813
"I'd really rather not see it turn into a flame war." Lofty idea, but isn't flamming the favorite pastime for the bots on FR these days?
172
posted on
10/31/2003 1:33:27 PM PST
by
ImpBill
("America! ... Where are you now?")
To: Scenic Sounds
I don't find much of value in Cathryn Crawford's discussion because it lacks specificity. How can you categorize someone by using broad statements like "believes in the primacy of individual rights over government rights." Surely Cathryn wouldn't insist that I lose my conservative credentials because I want the government to arrest the man who wants to yell "fire" in a crowded theater when, in fact, there is no fire.
So, cut to the chase, Cathryn. Implied in your piece is a belief that a Republican who ventures to the "center" will eventually lose her "conservative base" of support. What specific actions do you have in mind, which move a Republican too close to the center?
173
posted on
10/31/2003 1:36:40 PM PST
by
Sonnyw
(Be Specific, Cathryn)
To: Cathryn Crawford
I'm wondering if there is a baseline conservativism that Republicans must have. Are certian beliefs essential? No and No. I feel like we've been through this before, but why confuse a political party or political affiliation with a value system? There have been and are today Democrats more conservative than some Republicans (Nunn was and Z. Miller is). Conservatives have congregated around the Republican banner, increasingly since the Goldwater/Rockefeller convention.
If we establish a "baseline conservatism" or litmus test for membership in a political party, does that adhere to the conservative value of individualism? Why respect Zell Miller's individualism, but not Specter's or Snow's?
I am most amazed that conservatives tend toward cookie-cutter acceptance rather than accepting that conservative values are a way of life for an individual, easily recognized by others. I don't demand all politicians meet my value system to belong to a political party and I vote for the politicians who do regardless of their political party.
I wonder, if I limit my own dependence on government, how active must I be, as a conservative, in denying others of dependence on their government to keep it small? Is my stake in the debate only the amount of taxes extorted to support ignorant, lame and lazy? Is my only option to make the dependant-prone dependent directly on me instead through charity, perhaps helping them to their own independence and conservative value system?
To: Scenic Sounds
You left out some very important Conservative beliefs; ones which go like a hand in a glove, with the ones that you cited. For one, we believe in honesty and honor--agreeing with George Washington, that "Honesty is always the best policy." And closely allied with that is our belief in Constitutional limitations--the legal basis for the limitations on Government that you mention. Honesty and honor, make distortions of the Constitutional compact offensive morally, even as they offend our other sentiments.
One of the least acceptable aspects of modern American politics is the wholesale use of rationalizations to justify whatever the individual politician thinks may sound good, whatever he thinks may serve his interests, rather than the duty imposed by his oath of office. The abuse of the "Commerce Clause," is an excellent example of the use of rationalizations to defeat the clear intent of the Founding Fathers, and undermine the Constitutional limitations and protections.
I do not intend this, in anyway, to be seen as an attack on what you wrote. I agree completely with the perspective on the issue raised, and again applaud your good efforts on behalf of our cause.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
175
posted on
10/31/2003 1:47:01 PM PST
by
Ohioan
To: gcruse
Eliminating the deficit by reducing the size of the federal government would have been moving to the right. Actually, Clinton did a pretty good job at that by emasculating the military, don't you think?
To: tpaine
Nice...
To: robertpaulsen
"Conservatism isn't a reflective term."In theory, no. In actuality, it's measured against the liberals (prescription drugs, for example -- nothing conservative about it).
Conservatism is about preserving the values that are seen as enduring; about preserving heritage; about the continuity of a people. As such, it will vary from people to people. But by its very "conservative" nature, it may be a little less dramatic in some of its reactions to those things which it opposes than are the forces of destruction and social turmoil--those Socialists euphemistically called "reformers."
There is indeed nothing conservative about the proposal to have the Federal Government subsidize prescription drugs. The idea is not only Unconstitutional, it is about the most economically unsound idea to be put forward since Lyndon Johnson rammed through the original Medicare. When you combine unconstitutionality, with economic madness--denial of the obvious realities involved--you have something which no Conservative, moderate or prudent person, should countenance.
178
posted on
10/31/2003 2:00:17 PM PST
by
Ohioan
To: Sonnyw
A core "Conservative" value is limited Federal power; not to be confused with no Federal power.
Taking power from local and state governments in self government institutions like education, property rights and mandates move the party to the center.
179
posted on
10/31/2003 2:06:17 PM PST
by
CyberCowboy777
(After taking several readings, I'm surprised to find my mind still fairly sound.)
To: optimistically_conservative
Actually, Clinton did a pretty good job at that by emasculating the military, don't you think?
Yup. Only emasculating the military is moving to the left. Dumping the DOE, the BATF,
mohair subsidies (sorry, Sam Donaldson), peanut quotas, dairy supports, and others I am sure
you could add, would be moving toward the right.
180
posted on
10/31/2003 2:06:28 PM PST
by
gcruse
(http://gcruse.typepad.com/)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160, 161-180, 181-200, 201-218 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson