Paleo-Conservatives Departing The Grand Old Party

Renew America ^ | 6/4/2006 | Bonnie Alba

[A. Pole]

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. :)

[Clemenza]

"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.

[MountainMenace]

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.

[steadfastconservative]

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?

[FerdieMurphy]

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.

[Liberty Valance]

Divide and conquer
It's a time honored tradition.

[A. Pole]

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.

[FerdieMurphy]

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

[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.

[A. Pole]

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.

[Amelia]

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....

[staytrue]

Either satisfy us by November or you're gone

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

[Clemenza]

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.

[Amelia]

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.

[A. Pole]

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

So you prefer income tax over tariffs?

[Paladin2]

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

[Paladin2]

Hopefully there will be an adequate choice this year.

[Dreagon]

"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.

[staytrue]

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.

[deport]

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.