Posted on 06/10/2006 6:20:18 AM PDT by FerdieMurphy
Conservative Republicans held such hopes when Pres. Bush was heralded into office and the Republicans gained control of the Congress. That was then, this is now.
According to recent polls, conservative republicans are perplexed by the non-conservative actions of this president and the Republican-controlled Congress.
As I probed this latest confusion I found that I, and millions of other citizens, are f-o-s-s-i-l-s. According to Wikipedia Encyclopedia online, we are "Paleo" or "Old" conservatives. We are living fossils, 'about-to-become-extinct' hangers-on of the Grand Old Party which no longer appears to represent traditional conservatism.
The Republican Party in its essentials has been taken over by a mutation. Wikipedia describes this line of thought as "Neo" or "New Wave" conservatism. It's tenets are not really new, just enjoined by present-day politicians and citizens as the direction our nation should pursue. But it is contrary to many basic "Paleocon" principles.
"Paleocons" believe in the principles of limited government, limited spending and borrowing, limited intervention into citizens' lives, and states' rights. They also believe in restraint of foreign entanglement, a strong national defense and traditional family values
"Neocons" believe in an agressive foreign policy, empiric intervention in other nations to spread democracy, and global economic-trade policies. Weak on domestic policies, they lack emphasis on national issues. Their vision includes motivating our nation towards what I believe Pres. Bush's father referred to as the "New World Order." Include growth of government and overspending too.
Sound familiar? Now we know why the media refers to Pres. Bush and his administration as "Neocons." Many congressional Republicans belong in this catagory too.
The Republican-controlled Congress has acted and evolved in accordance with the mutant Neocon concept of overspending and overgrowing government, ignoring the burgeoning National and Public Debt approaching $40-60 trillion, most of it owned by foreign investors.
Recent crises and scandals such as social security, medicare, tax reform, earmarks, budget deficits, illegal aliens and gasoline prices gain the media spotlight for a few days or weeks. Then they seem to fade away, crammed together on the "we'll deal with you later"shelf. Always later.
My wake-up call came the morning I woke up to Howard Dean saying, "The first thing we want is tough border control, we have to do a much better job on our borders than George Bush has done." Though I knew this was blatant political rhetoric, it was shocking because I completely agreed with him.
Pres. Bush and the Congress have ignored domestic security of our homeland, borders and ports — until it was raised by the people! But if I agree with a liberal democrat, that does not a democrat make.
It is clear that the Grand Old Party has evolved and mutated which leaves a large conservative group, the Paleocons, scratching their heads and wondering what happened? I, for one, feel isolated from the GOP. The Party has entombed the Paleocons on the sidelines, bleached fossils, puzzled eyes peering at the GOP's total embrace of Neo-conservatism.
There is excited talk about Congress gearing up and acting on a few issues before the upcoming elections so they won't lose voters. I've got news for them. They have already lost citizens like this old fossil, who have reflected on the last five years of non-conservative actions.
Where's the limits on spending, limits on growth in government, adherence to the U.S. Constitution? Where's the traditional values and seeking the good of the nation as a whole instead of the corruptive influence of special interests? Yes, there are a few "Paleocons" in Congress but they are not listened to nor even heard amongst the clamor of "Neocons" and "Liberals" calling each other names.
I am a living fossil as are million of citizens, which brings me to the point. Where's the party that speaks to my conscience? I am past that retort: "Oh no! you must vote Republican or the Democrats will win!" Oh Please! I say — so what? Has it made any difference?
The Grand Old Party appears to have accepted this "Neocon" mutation, to move towards a world economy policy, open borders and the "New World Order." Why would I, this old fossil of white-bleached bones, vote for any republican candidate? No longer does the Republican Party speak to or for my "conscience."
As for this Paleocon, I am searching for a party that matches my "conscience." This is the one freedom citizens still have in this country — a citizen's privilege and responsibility to vote his or her "conscience." This old fossil takes this duty seriously.
Well, Facelift Pelosi is every bit as anti-war and anti-defense and, therefore, anti-American as the paleopantywaists.
"Don't let the door hit your butts on the way out."
Nice. You make your party proud.
True it is forgotten and it will be repeated: the limp wrists will continue to undermine the Reagan-Republicans.
Double check. I believe Rumsfelds seat is currently held by pantywasteMarkKirk.
The GOP has a long way to go in the way of improvement but that path lies not in the direction of those who want the USA to fold up and die in foreign affairs, strip our military of the assets needed for effective projection of force in the interests of the USA, nor to imagine that somehow the SCOTUS will be improved in a Demonrat regime just because paleopantywaists were just NOT GETTING their way on some mini-issues or on peace now!!!! and just HAD to throw some mindless temper tantrum over it.
I do read every ping from you. Sometimes you personally make sense. Sometimes not. This post to which I am responding is worst in show. If you think those conservatives who are mislabeled as "neo" (but are the actual conservatives) are globalists who will turn Demonrat in a blink, then you are flat out wrong. If you think that the eccentric bozos at the Rockford Institute or the pacifists at LlewellynRockwell.com all of whom consort with the likes of Justin(e) Raimondo and the late Sam Francis are at all describable as conservative, we differ greatly on the meaning of conservative and history is NOT on your side.
The defense of toxic but colorful little satrapies like Montenegro or Iraq or Iran or whatever for their own sakes is not conservative. Conservatism has evolved (12/7/41 and 9/11/01 for prime reasons why) leaving isolationists where they belong in the dustbin of history.
American conservatives are NOT feckless and helpless Euroweenies. The GOP will NEVER again be some Main Street, backroom, assemblage of old stock coupon clippers and small time bankers. If you (as I believe you do) want social conservatism as do I, then the future of the GOP will require a substantial helping of Hispanics and maybe even blacks who believe in the Bible they hear preached one or more times per week (see Ohio black voting in 2004).
If the GOP goes pro-abort and/or pro-faggot and/or peace at any price, then the social conservatives may well go to the Demonrat Party and, and with enough Hispanics added to the voter pool, we may make over the Demo Party of our ancestors. If that ever happens, read as much as you can about the Federalists and the Whigs in their death throes.
"Paleos" like to fantasize that they are essential to the GOP. A more likely scenario would be continued control of the GOP (and the government) by actual conservatives and policy modification in tax areas to spread the benefit of them. Intensity does not equal voting strength. However bitter the moan, groan and bitch crowd of "paleowhatevers" may be, their numbers do not approach their intensity. Few people like to be hectored by incessantly whiny obscurantists.
One term of Demonrats running Congress and Mrs. Arkansas Antichrist at 1600 should cure any desire of conservatives to take "paleos" seriously ever again.
Reading your posts to this point, I invite you to stay home. We can do this without the twelve of you. We will focus our minds on replacing each defector with a hundred or so social conservatives who oppose abortion and the fudgies while supporting a manly foreign policy. Don't let the door, etc.....
Clemenza is absolutely right that the socially and politically exotics known as "paleocons" attacked Reagan back in the day when they figured out that he regarded them as not ready for prime time. David Frum had an excellent and quite informative National Review article describing the origins of paleoism in about April, 2004.
On foreign and military policy, "paleos" are Demonrats in drag. On the constitution, their "analysis" would make any sensible person gag. Their highest ambition is the creation of a USA ready to fight missiles and H-bombs with muskets. Reality is their enemy now and forever.
from Wikipedia.org:
Crane was a faculty member at Indiana and at Bradley University in Peoria, a staff member for the Republican National Committee and a director of research for the 1964 Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater.
He was first elected to Congress in the 13th District of Illinois in a 1969 special election, succeeding Donald Rumsfeld, who was appointed to a position in the Nixon administration.
US Senator Conrad Burns (R) of Montana is up for re-election this fall. Baucus is not.
As an actual (not a paleo) conservative, I support most wars but even I admit to seeing little purpose (advantage to the USA as the USA) in involving the USA in Clinton's Wag the Dog war in the Balkans.
How can someone (like the paleos) purport to believe in the constitution as written and yet not take the Confederate position that secession was nowhere prohibited and that the Confederate States were legally able to secede and did secede. People like Tom Fleming at the Rockford Institute are not often correct in their disputes with conservatives. As to any conservative who favors the myth that secession was somehow prohibited by the emanations and the penumbras or for any other reason, Fleming is right and they are wrong.
On the Iraq War, what is the difference between Paleopantywaist Ted the Swimmer and paleopantywaists like Ron Paul????? None. Like Murtha, both want the US to flee in terror with its tail between its legs.
If you want to attack Ted Stevens, don't let him get away with being a militant pro-abort and tool of Planned Barrenhood or with the bridge to nowhere.
An eloquent and infallible post. I second that entire motion.
Not hard to find.....it's called the Constitution Party. I'm hoping Tancredo heads the ticket in 2008.
Do you want to bet? :)
Have you been reading my posts, or something? :)
I did not support attacking communist Serbia.
Section 10. States prohibited from the exercise of certain powers.
1. No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make any thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.
2. No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection laws; and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.
3. No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in a war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.
Article IVFurthermore,
Section 4. Republican form of government guaranteed. Each State to be protected.
The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union, a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened), against domestic violence.
Article VI
2. This constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
3. The senators and representatives before-mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
And defending the CPB also as pointed out above. All which further embellishes the point that he is an RINO. He may vote for A GOP Senator for Majority Leader, but not a conservative one, and that nominal duty satisfied, from then on he may as well caucus with the RATs.
Likely one of his few areas of departure from his fellow RATs would be his vote on ANWR. Isn't he also the one that always preached duplicitously busting the budgets post-Graham-Rudman, telling his fellows like McCain..."It's Win-Win"?
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.