Divide and conquer
It's a time honored tradition.
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.
I will write in my favored candidate. :)
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.
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.
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?
Your statement demonstrates how truly desperate we are for a real conservative administration, judiciary and congress.
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.
Your comments have value and are indeed worthy of serious consideration.
Not true. They believe in NORMAL tariffs as there were used over 200 years of US history.
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....
You sound like a bitchy ex wife soon to be a 2 time divorcee.
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.
Exactly! There were some plenty heated arguments here in 2000-2001 over whether or not Keyes and Buchanan were correct.
So you prefer income tax over tariffs?
I voted (successfully) against my RINO Senator six years ago.
Hopefully there will be an adequate choice this year.
"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."
No they won't. Buchanan already ran in 2000 and the republicans still won.
But most people cannot understand this line of thinking.
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.