[KDD]

I wonder how much irony this thread could generate.

[FSPress]

This should have generated considerable opposition by the new republican moderates party

[jimkress]

One thing is certain: conservatives who worked and voted for less government in the Reagan years and welcomed the takeover of the U.S. Congress and the presidency in the 1990s and early 2000s were deceived. Soon they will realize that the goal of limited government has been dashed and that their views no longer matter.

I was among them. I voted for Bush. I prayed for his victory. I defended him in this forum, before and after he was elected.

I was betrayed.

No matter whether you vote for a 'Republican' or 'Democrat' presidential candidate you will still get a Liberal in the White House. Bush has proven that with his complicity in CFR 1st Amendment destruction and associated IRS abuse, horrific entitlement spending increases (e.g Medicare), amnesty for illegals, grotesque expansion of the Federal Government, continuing assault on our right to keep and bear arms, his refusal to deal with the oligarchical behavior of the Federal Judiciary, etc.

The only difference between the Republicans and the Democrats is that the Democrats want the US ruled by a combination of national and international despots while the Republicans prefer tyranny by just national despots.

Bush is a Republican Liberal. Bush believe Government is the solution, not the problem. His only difference with Liberals in the Democrat wing of the Liberal establishment is that his priorities for Big Government are slightly different from theirs - but with the same goal, complete subservience of/dependence on Americans to their government and its associated political class.

Given the objectives of both parties are the same, how can anyone justify supporting either party?

Oh yeah, with respect to the "giving your vote to Democrats" comments - the lesser of two evils is still evil. As long as people refuse to follow (and vote) their principles, evil prospers.

Vote for FREEDOM, not Republican/Democrat hegemony. Support the Constitution Party.

[Dane]

I wonder how much irony this thread could generate.

JMO, but by the long windedness, Ron Paul could generate enough wind power to keep the lights on in California for years.

[Terpfen]

He started off good, but then started talking about Neocons, and I just lost interest.

What happens if a conservative is for pre-emptive engagement of threats, but wants to abolish the welfare state, and thinks Trotsky is an idiot?

[G.Mason]

Ron Paul is a fine upstanding member of Congress, but he needs a math lesson.

A near majority, if not more, of Americans want socialism.

Case closed.

Now all you Bush bashers stay home in November, or vote for the Dims, via the Constitution Party, or whatever. None here, I doubt, will lose any sleep

[IronJack]

It sounds like Ron Paul is one of a handful of paleo-conservatives remaining today. I'm beginning to believe that the election of George Bush Jr. was the worst thing that has happened to conservatism in this country since Antonio Gramsci.

It also occurs to me that it's time for a split between the paleos and the neos, and that, having been betrayed so frequently and consistently by the left-drifting Republican Party, paleos no longer have a home there.

It would seem that a new home for conservatism could be built around a core of people like Ron Paul, Alan Keyes, Pat Buchanan, Robert Bork, etc.. That would seem to be an effort worth pursuing.

Without a new set of champions and a place to call its own, paleoconservatism may be doomed.

[FBD]

Some interesting discussion material here. Landru, recall our discussions of a certain 15th century spin-meister?
{snip}:
"There is now a recognized philosophic connection between modern-day neoconservatives and Irving Kristol, Leo Strauss and Machiavelli. This is important in understanding that today's policies and the subsequent problems will be with us for years to come if these policies are not reversed.

Not only did Leo Strauss write favorably of Machiavelli, Michael Ledeen, a current leader of the neoconservative movement, did the same. In 1999, Ledeen titled his book, Machiavelli on Modern Leadership, and subtitled: Why Machiaveli's iron rules are as timely and important today as five centuries ago. Ledeen is indeed an influential neocon theorist whose views get lots of attention today in Washington. His book on Machiavelli, interestingly enough, was passed out to Members of Congress...

...In Machiavelli on Modern Leadership, Ledeen praises a business leader for correctly understanding Machiavelli: "There are no absolute solutions. It all depends. What is right and what is wrong depends on what needs to be done and how." This is a clear endorsement of situation ethics and is not coming from the traditional left. It reminds me of: "It depends on what the definition of the word 'is' is."

[Cacique]

btt

[wizardoz]

There is abundant evidence exposing those who drive our foreign policy justifying preemptive war... can freedom and the Republic survive this takeover?

You know, I have some Libertarian leanings and I sympathize with a lot of his stances... but does he really think "freedom and the Republic" could survive a well-funded, fanatically determined attack by the Islamist movement without ever fighting back? How would President Ron Paul have responded to 9/11?? I really wonder.

[arthurus]

...but the inexorable growth in the size and scope of government has continued unabated accelerated explosively...

[Biblebelter]

We have two political parties which are mirroring each other. They do not want to take office and lead, they simply want to take office and hold it. The Democrats were kicked out of the White House not because he was a criminal and made the Democratic party into a criminal enterprise. They were kicked out because of the basically nameless faceless lemmings below him in the party who were only focused on holding what they had. I wonder what would have happened had someone in the Democratic Party who held a significant office had put his office at risk by standing up and asking Clinton to resign for the good of his country and his party.

Of course with the Clinton crowd he could have been a victim of Arkancide or the politics of personal destruction. But I do not see politicians of either party willing to put their own office at risk in order to clean up their own party.

Whether the Republican Party exists in Illinois is debatable. But it is not debatable that former Republican Governor George Ryan was one of the biggest crooks to ever hold the governorship. This is in a state which has a tradition of indicting governors of both parties. It was distressing to see the Republican bozoes sit back and never criticize or hold Ryan accountable. Not one major officeholder of either party asked this racketeer to step down. Why should the Democrats ask him to resign when they played him like a cheap fiddle? The silence of the Republicans was rewarded they like the national Democrats hold neither House or the Executive.

I take no pleasure in bashing Bush, because I look at the Republican officeholders under him. This party much like the Democrats have built organizations in which taking office only with the purpose of holding it is each party's focus.

I applaud the House Managers for taking a stand and putting their offices at risk. But where are those who would stir up the elites within the party in order to move their party forward and serve the greater good of the nation?

[glock rocks]

ping

[hosepipe]

I have been worried both partys were co-opted since before 1994... but Newt Gingrich gave some hope.. his words were always Ann Coulter-lite..(I liked that) but he went and got himself "Bork'ed".. It looks like he was doing damage control for the shadow government.. Hes been so quiet since, or supportive of republican politics..

It would hard for somebody now to convince me we have a two party government now.. with Clinton veering right for a second term and Bush veering left for the same reason.. Tricking the voters must work but belies serious honesty issues,,, The march toward abject socialism seems inexorable.. So what do I do .?..

Vote for Bush.. eventhough current wisdom asks for a 60+ majority in the Senate and THEN the size of government can be addressed.. and hope if that happens a Coup D'etat won't happen installing an obvious Oligarchy <<- BUSH?.. NAH!.. probably the Clintons after all if you want socialism lets the DEMOCRATS DO IT CORRECTLY... anyone that still thinks we have a republic is in clinical denial(republicans) cause if america is NOT a democracy we're doing a damned good imitation..
i.e. america is a republic <<-myth. America WAS a republic.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

Posters referring to conservatives as "neocons." Posters referring to supporters of a sitting Republican President as mindless "bushbots." Posters openly advocating voting for other party candidates, with the inevitable end result of guaranteeing a Democratic Party victory in '04.

Welcome to the MoveOn.org message board.

[RaceBannon]

Like so many have said, True Conservatives want the welfare state abolished, we want the NEA defunded along with NPR and PBS, but we also want pre-emptive military action where it is legitimate, instead of reactionary strikes of tit-for-tat.

What he failed to cover with any depth is the moral bankruptcy of this nation, meaning that people no longer know right from wrong to make the decisions necessary to want less government, less intrusion, while all the while recognizing that drug use is a moral wrong and SHOULD be illegal. To make any claoims of Neo-Cons supporting the WOD, I think it is the neo-CONS who DO NOT support the WOD, the neo-cons to me are people who WANT to legalize dope.

[185JHP]

One reason 'tarians are (very appropriately) despised and scorned is the "limits" they desire are limits on the government dealing with the likes of Kozlowski and Stewart. #2, 6, 8, 10, 13, 15, and 17 are nuggets the fatuous can't properly assay with their faulty equipment.

[Tricorn]

"The conservatives have failed..."

You got that right, brother! We've had the reigns of power for 3 years -- 3 YEARS!! -- after a 50-yr Democratic stranglehold over ALL our institutions and we haven't completely reordered society yet??!!

I'm outta here, jack. (/sarcasm)

[mrustow]

I agree with what Dr. No says, with two large exceptions:

1. War on Iraq was justifiable, with or without neo-con pseudo-intellectual baggage. The first war with Iraq had never ended, because: A. Saddam had continuously violated the cease-fire agreement; B. We had to plant out foot in the Mideast; and C. Put the fear of Allah into the locals, particularly our true worst enemies, the Saudis.

2. Paul fails to distinguish between the requirements of foreign and of domestic policy. He would impose the same rule on both foreign and domestic policy. A government that refuses to deceive its foreign enemies, will not long endure.

The question Ledeen doesn't answer is: "Why do the political leaders not suffer from the same shortcomings and where do they obtain their monopoly on wisdom?"

Once this trust is placed in the hands of a powerful leader, this neocon argues that certain tools are permissible to use. For instance: "lying is central to the survival of nations and to the success of great enterprises, because if our enemies can count on the reliability of everything you say, your vulnerability is enormously increased." What about the effects of lying on one's own people? Who cares if a leader can fool the enemy? Does calling it "strategic deception" make lying morally justifiable? Ledeen and Machiavelli argue that it does, as long as the survivability of the state is at stake. Preserving the state is their goal, even if the personal liberty of all individuals has to be suspended or canceled.