Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Paleo-Conservatives Departing The Grand Old Party
Renew America ^ | 6/4/2006 | Bonnie Alba

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.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 3rdpartyidiot; ancienttimes; bs; conservatives; darkages; getjobspaleos; gop; howarddean; irrelevant; livinginavacuum; losers; mnjohnnieisback; neoconservatives; parishandpoverty; propaganda; vote3rdpartyandlose; whitetrash
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 321-332 next last
To: VRWCtaz
Again, no thank you - not one more time. If the result is no different with a Republican majority verses a Democratic one, I will at least be true to my personal integrity with my support of a third party. I just have to find that party!

I will write in my favored candidate. :)

61 posted on 06/10/2006 7:21:29 AM PDT by A. Pole (Evolution has demonstrated that the optimal IQ is the average IQ !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: FerdieMurphy
"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

From my experience, they also believe in high tariffs to protect failed businesses, seek alliances with brain dead unionists and black nationalists (see Ms. Fulani), believe that the U.S. should stand and watch as Islamists plot against us, and, in general, go back to the 1930s, when the "right wing" movement was dominated by eccentric wealthy folks who were mildly anti-semitic and unemployed (and unemployable) lower class white folk who listened to Father Coughlin on the radio so that they could blame their sorry conditions on others.

I know many paleocons who are good people. Most, however, are miserable failures to whom life has passed by. According to a-sholes like Buchanan, my family was better off living in crowded tenenments near polluting, belching factories, largely because they were ignorantly loyal to the local parish.

Paleocons (who call Reagan a neocon back in the day) should be regarded as eccentrics at best and quacks at worst. They apparently are using the immigration issue to attract more to their movement. Nevertheless, once potential recruits actually see what the Buchanan/Rockford Institute crowd REALLY believe in, they will opt out.

62 posted on 06/10/2006 7:22:15 AM PDT by Clemenza (The CFR ate my bilderburgers! Time to call for a trilateral commission to investigate!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

I don't agree. Your brand of divisiveness is just as damaging as those who threaten to leave for this non-existent third party. The end result is the same, we give the rats more power than they deserve. Keeping the party together is our strength for we have more in common than differences; huge when compared to the Democrats. They have a zoo on their hands with every breed known to mankind in the barn, outside the barn, peeing on each other, and eating their young. Stress the common goals, accept the criticism, hang together, push for Republican candidates that are to our liking, and win in November.


63 posted on 06/10/2006 7:23:40 AM PDT by MountainMenace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: FerdieMurphy

I think that the categories of "paleo-con" and "neo-con" are too broad and, therefore, that they are not accurate. Moreover, Wickipedia is not an accurate website. Anyone can come in and edit its content.

I happen to agree with most of the beliefs that Wickipedia attributes to the "paleo-cons," such as traditional values and limited government. But I support the War in Iraq and I oppose protectionism. So what am I?

I think that "neo-con" is just a convenient little label that the Buchananites are using to slap on any Republican who doesn't agree with their isolationist foreign policy.

Finally, if the Buchananites want to form a third party, they will guarantee the election of a Democrat president in 2008. Does anyone at FR honestly think that electing Hillary, Kerry, or any other Democrat in 2008 would be good for our country? Or does punishing "neo-cons" take precedence over doing what is best for America?


64 posted on 06/10/2006 7:23:56 AM PDT by steadfastconservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dreagon
I will NOT vote for a Republican who has dissed the social conservatives the way that John McCain has.

Your statement demonstrates how truly desperate we are for a real conservative administration, judiciary and congress.

65 posted on 06/10/2006 7:24:03 AM PDT by FerdieMurphy (For English, Press One. (Tookie, you won the Pulitzer and Nobel prizes. Oh, too late.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: FerdieMurphy

Divide and conquer
It's a time honored tradition.
66 posted on 06/10/2006 7:24:05 AM PDT by Liberty Valance (Keep a simple manner for a happy life)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dreagon
If I'm gonna have to suffer under a liberal, it can damn well be a Democrat.

There is one advantage in Democrats winning - there will be a real opposition party in Congress. Right now any Brave New World agenda (like open borders) can pass easily since Democrats do not oppose it.

67 posted on 06/10/2006 7:25:14 AM PDT by A. Pole (Evolution has demonstrated that the optimal IQ is the average IQ !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: steadfastconservative

Your comments have value and are indeed worthy of serious consideration.


68 posted on 06/10/2006 7:25:54 AM PDT by FerdieMurphy (For English, Press One. (Tookie, you won the Pulitzer and Nobel prizes. Oh, too late.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: ecomcon
My dear departed mamma would say "you are cutting off your nose to spite your face". President Bush has done "great things" you say, but just not quite great enough. You expected to get EVERYTHING you wanted and you didn't quite get it. That's because President Bush is a politician, he knows he has to compromise. You on the other hand are willing to throw everything he has done down the drain because you didn't get 100% of what you wanted. You are pathetic.
69 posted on 06/10/2006 7:26:24 AM PDT by Ditter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Clemenza
From my experience, they also believe in high tariffs to protect failed businesses

Not true. They believe in NORMAL tariffs as there were used over 200 years of US history.

70 posted on 06/10/2006 7:27:24 AM PDT by A. Pole (Evolution has demonstrated that the optimal IQ is the average IQ !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: 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.

Actually, no. Alan Keyes and the Renew America folks were complaining like crazy for the first year of the Bush presidency that he wasn't a "real conservative"....

Not that I agree with Bush on border control and running such a high deficit, but....

71 posted on 06/10/2006 7:29:25 AM PDT by Amelia (Education exists to overcome ignorance, not validate it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dreagon
Either satisfy us by November or you're gone

You sound like a bitchy ex wife soon to be a 2 time divorcee.

72 posted on 06/10/2006 7:30:22 AM PDT by staytrue (Moonbat conservatives-those who would rather have the democrats win.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole

The reason tariffs were at such a level is 1. the industrial elites at the time (yes, those fat cat capitalist cronies) WANTED protectionism, it had nothing to do with the "common good" of the country and 2. We didn't have an income tax, so DC had to raise funds via tariffs.


73 posted on 06/10/2006 7:30:39 AM PDT by Clemenza (The CFR ate my bilderburgers! Time to call for a trilateral commission to investigate!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: RedRover
As I recall, paleo-conservatives were twitchy about Bush from the beginning--not overjoyed. Alan Keyes and Pat Buchanan were plenty vocal in 2000.

Exactly! There were some plenty heated arguments here in 2000-2001 over whether or not Keyes and Buchanan were correct.

74 posted on 06/10/2006 7:31:25 AM PDT by Amelia (Education exists to overcome ignorance, not validate it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Clemenza
We didn't have an income tax, so DC had to raise funds via tariffs.

So you prefer income tax over tariffs?

75 posted on 06/10/2006 7:32:49 AM PDT by A. Pole (Evolution has demonstrated that the optimal IQ is the average IQ !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Dreagon

I voted (successfully) against my RINO Senator six years ago.


76 posted on 06/10/2006 7:33:12 AM PDT by Paladin2 (If the political indictment's from Fitz, the jury always acquits.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2

Hopefully there will be an adequate choice this year.


77 posted on 06/10/2006 7:34:20 AM PDT by Paladin2 (If the political indictment's from Fitz, the jury always acquits.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Ditter

"My dear departed mamma would say "you are cutting off your nose to spite your face". President Bush has done "great things" you say, but just not quite great enough. You expected to get EVERYTHING you wanted and you didn't quite get it. That's because President Bush is a politician, he knows he has to compromise. You on the other hand are willing to throw everything he has done down the drain because you didn't get 100% of what you wanted. You are pathetic."



Great things for whom, precisely? Yeah, he has delivered time and time again for the corporate Republicans. And he has delivered time and time again for the neocons. If you fall into either of those too catagories, by all means continue to support him since he has done well by you. Unfortanetely there is another part of the Republican base that has been taken for granted, and are well aware of it. We aren't interested in excuses, we aren't interested in lectures, we aren't interested in apologies, we simply want results. If the Reps want our votes they can deliver the results.


78 posted on 06/10/2006 7:34:54 AM PDT by Dreagon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: steadfastconservative
if the Buchananites want to form a third party, they will guarantee the election of a Democrat president in 2008.

No they won't. Buchanan already ran in 2000 and the republicans still won.

79 posted on 06/10/2006 7:35:16 AM PDT by staytrue (Moonbat conservatives-those who would rather have the democrats win.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.

But most people cannot understand this line of thinking.



Teddy don't know that most people can't understand but rather maybe its that most people understand that things never are stagnant and are ever evolving. Cycles come and cycles go, the world we live in is ever evolving, nothing is static for if it is then you are falling behind as the rest move forward.

If things were to stay as they were then we'd still be with the Luddites, the buggy whip makers would still be in business and the Conestoga wagon would be the freight hauler of the day or maybe we'd still be back in the stone age. The bottom line is you move with the times and adapt or become obsolete.


80 posted on 06/10/2006 7:35:37 AM PDT by deport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 321-332 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson