Replies

For Joe: You came late to the debate, and I'm going to assume that you haven't read the commentary between P and myself from beginning to end, because this is the third time you've responded to something in a way that was contrary to what was posted.

I am not sure what debate you are talking about, because I was responding to your responses to me. If you find that contrary, it may be because I take issue with things you post.

Do not so casually dismiss me.

I am one of the "Conservatives which do not exist". Maybe not inside the beltway, but out here in the hinterlands, when you get more than 100 miles from the coast, there are plenty.

We are far from extinct, and while not a political majority, even among those who consider themselves "conservative" because they are an angstrom unit to the right of Hillary on the political spectrum, we are a still a significant factor.

I know you for what you are. You are one of the masses of pseudoconservative liberals who are busy trying to morph the party into a watered down version of the other party. One of those who stands for standing for nothing.

You think that will defeat Islam? No. It will pave the way to dhimmitude and do the roadwork.

We confront an enemy in the WOT who believes they have the only answer. Anything less than that depth of conviction, any waffling, any pandering, any 'negotiation' will result in a loss.

We believe the willful abandonment of a vow so fundamental as that taken in marriage speaks volumes about a person's character. While we do not expect perfection, we hold our leaders to a higher standard instead of using some assumption of quasi-royalty to excuse actions we would not excuse among ourselves. We have a visceral disgust for the double standard that demands more from the rank and file than their leaders, and that fundamental dislike is part of what makes us conservatives.

At the same time, we also have an inconvenient document called a Constitution. Often ignored, commonly twisted, thoroughly soiled, badly battered, it still exists.

There are those of us who believe the founders were far wiser and in many ways far more moral than those who would pitch principle to the wind to 'win' an election, despite the alleged failings of the founders.

You state: "As for the rank and file, while there may be a relative few who are thoughtful folks, the majority of what calls itself conservative are little more than small clusters of one-issue voters, fringe lunatics, religious zealots, malcontents and vicious little idiots running around who resemble the Blackshirts of every totalitarian movement you could ever think of, and yet they have the audacity to claim that they act so under the cover of exercising Constitutional rights and that THEY are the guardians of the Constitution. These people are militant, they are mentally-stunted, they are poisonous, and they don't belong in MY REPUBLICAN party."

If this is your attitude, you do not belong in our Republican Party.

Ultimately, we are the guardians of the Constitution, each and every one of us, for power is derived from the people by their consent.

You say we "resemble the blackshirts of every totalitarian movement", what a classic liberal twist!

Who is trying to take Constitutional rights from whom?

What a classic liberal ploy to call those who stand for their beliefs in opposition to yours "mentally stunted", to equate resolve with stupidity.

To call those of us who believe murdering 45,000,000 babies in the womb morally wrong "poisonous".

Or is it those who believe it should not be a felony to own a tin box capable of feeding your rifle more than an arbitrary number of cartridges?

Perhaps you refer to those whose ancestors came to this country to worship God freely, only to see Him systematically removed from our culture and public places, to satiate the braying of a small minority who claim to not worship a God at all.

As for one issue voters, yes, there are a few, but most of us 'flyover country' conservatives have more than one issue we regard as critically important, any one of which is enough to render a candidate unsuitable. Perhaps you find that imponderable, but spare us your vitriolic and sanctimonious screed for your failings.

Fortunately, Rudy can 'not appeal' to those who would discard a candidate who they deem unsuitable on more than one issue as well. He has the ability to 'not appeal' to a broad spectrum of one-issue voters, which I presume to some means he is a real winner. Most of those who think that constitutes the 'winning formula' do not claim title to the Republican Party, though.

There are quite a number of us who view the beltway circus with the disgust it has thoroughly earned in the past 50 years, and especially in the last decade. We believe, still, that that can be straightened out, but that it will take time and an unwavering resolve to keep the helm to starboard. That will not happen overnight, but an abandonment of principle will only ensure that it does not happen at all.

Don't get me wrong, we'll need you knee-jerk party-line box checkers come the general election, while we replace the tainted members of the majority with conservatives in the primaries. It'll happen.

It'll happen because, like many others, I want better for my great-grandchildren, as do my grandchildren. They want the reality of opportunity which was the 'American Dream', not the ersatz which is no more than serfdom to the State.

Besides, "fringe lunatics, religious zealots, malcontents and vicious little idiots" pretty much sums up the Europeans who colonized this continent in the first place, distinct from the current crop of fringe lunatics, anti-religious zealots, malcontents and vicious little idiots who would bring this country down.