Posted on 02/19/2010 5:01:36 PM PST by Bokababe
I was asked yesterday whether I would be going to CPAC, the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, which is currently being held a half-hour's walk from my office in D.C. It was a logical question, not only since the meetings are so close at hand but also because for five years I chaired CPAC.
(Excerpt) Read more at correspondents.theatlantic.com ...
Ping
I don’t knbow what this guy is ranting about. Of course the Tea Party would welcome Ronald Reagan. Nobody more. And of course the Tea Party stands for constitutional liberties and rights. Nobody more.
“He was a foreign policy advisor to the Bush campaign in 2000 but endorsed Barack Obama in 2008.”
That about sums it up. He went senile or crazy some time in the past decade, and now he’s writing for one of the most Communist publications out there, The Atlantic.
Seminar poster! Get off the thread ya big dope!
That's an excellent point. If an American conservative discusses matters with a European conservative, they'll quickly see the difference. I recall discussing the matter with a Jean Marie Le Pen voter in France. She said she wanted more conservative values, and Le Pen was pro family because he had welfare programs for families. "Conservative" in Europe means restoring traditional social values and often has nothing to do with economics. Even more confusing, depending on the country, "liberal" means either socialist or libertarian.
Most of those transgressions that bother this guy are for foreign enemies of the United States. I see no moral reason to protect foreigners under a Constitution they wish to destroy. Give our enemies the benefit of the doubt at first then treat them as they treat others.
I actually view today’s CPAC as more of a RINO convention than a conservative one. The main purpose seems to be a social event for Beltway and East Coast Republicans. For the third consecutive year, Mitt will probably win the straw poll. Doesn’t sound that conservative to me.
event for Beltway and East Coast Republicans.
BINGO..(And it’s a vehicle that will fool..half of the Tea Party croud), I think that the Repuglican party is trying to CO-OPT the tea party through the CINOPAC Convention to go along with their Beltway-Eastern/Rockefeller Agenda (and candidates): I will not let it happen, I WILL not stand for their agend (socialism-Lite) and ~their~ candidates: I will not work my *ss off for them!
I like it!
Conservatism being hijacked by faux-cons, neocons and Rockefeller Republicans!
Huh? I posted the thread!
This year it’s become....Gay-PAC thanks to RINO Keene and the Romney-bots.
Mickey Edwards was not at CPAC because no one remembers who he was.
He once was a shining star. Today, he is a burnt-out whatever. No shining light, he, anymore.
ping to an interesting thread.
Here is all you need to know about Mr. Edwards:
“He was a foreign policy advisor to the Bush campaign in 2000 but endorsed Barack Obama in 2008.”
FRom his bio at the end of the article.
European Conservatives have almost always been concerned with "preserving traditional society" and the individual's rights coming second to that. Whereas, American Conservatism used to be about "preserving the rights of the individual", believing that in turn, these "free individuals" produced the healthiest society.
But somehow that "preservation of individual rights" got co-opted by American Liberals somewhere a long the way as the Liberal ACLU championed some of the most bizarre "civil rights" cases imaginable.
Meanwhile, after abandoning the individual rights issue, American Conservatism (as we now know it) took on a more European perspective of "preserving a traditional society". Whether that happened in the Jerry Falwell Moral Majority" era, I am not sure, but I think that it began about then. Today, it is almost completely entrenched in what is called "American Conservatism" -- striving for a traditional social rather than traditional economic ideal.
Likewise, American Conservatives used to shy away from involvement in foreign wars that were not about our direct defense. It was Liberal Interventionists who wanted to remake the globe. Now, the reputation is just the opposite-- American Conservatives are seen as the global interventionists and American Liberals are most often identified as "anti-war".
It is for this very reason that guys like Ron Paul, who is in the model of the old American Conservative, sound like "a Liberal" to today's American Conservative, but in fact, Ron Paul's is in the old American libertarian Conservative model -- "preserving the economic, social and civil rights of the individual" as his focus.
Look, the guy obviously went off the rails with that one -- but like the rest of us, look at what he had to choose from.
I don't agree with everything that he has to say, but he does make some very eloquent points in understanding where we came from and where we are today. He may have been misguided, but he certainly isn't senile.
I know not what the TEA party is if it is not for limited government. Although I see no limitation in the Constitution protecting foreign terrorist from what you for reasons beyond my understanding might call “Torched”. To be honest I don’t care nearly as much about dealing with terrorism or economy as i do about restoring liberty and constitutional law.
One thing i have however come to understand more and more is the basic fact that, if taking extraordinary extra-constitutional measures are the only way to “hold” the country together, then the country should not be held together.
Curing a Deases is not worth killing the patients, our federation does not exist simply for the sake of mere existences in a union together.
Nor does any government exist simply for the sake of existing. The propose of government and the union of men which forms it, is not to hold any “people” together in the same union under the same government, but rather excursively to protect the individual rights of the people.
Abandoning our our rights to preserve that union and/or government is quite frankly forsaking the propose of government and/or union for the mere existences of government and/or union. Thats not a trade.
Thats abandoning the object you needed a tool to preserve, just so that you could keep the tool!
No Lincoln and FDR, were both absolutely dead wrong! They destroyed our liberty, and it really doesn’t matter why.
Even if their extraordinary extra-constitutional acts were in fact necessary to preserve the union as they contended. the union is not above our liberty in importances!
No our Constitution is not a suerside pack, but abandoning it to achieve a political/economic goals is.
Our “Country” exist to preserve liberty, and if our “Country” can’t preserve our liberty while continuing to exist, then it should not continue to exist!
He reminds me of Obama wih respect to talking about civil liberties, except Obama seems to do anything he wants including killing foreign suspects.
Sorry. I was referring to Edwards (the big dope!)
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.