Posted on 01/24/2011 12:54:08 PM PST by John R. Guardiano
...Foreign Policy magazines John Rogin reports that Grover Norquist wants to start a discussion about leaving Afghanistan among the center-right. He wants to educate the conservative masses about the costs of the war in the hopes of shifting conservative opinion and effecting an American defeat.
Oh sure, Norquist didnt say he wants America to lose in Afghanistan, but he might as well have: because thats what an American withdrawal would mean: an American defeat...
The conservative coalition, of course, includes three distinct types of conservatives: defense and national security hawks, social and cultural cons, and economic or free-market conservatives.
Norquist is decidedly in the latter camp and seemingly antagonistic of late to cultural and defense cons.
Thus, in addition to suggesting that it might be OK to lose in Afghanistan, Norquist also has joined the advisory board of the homosexual advocacy organization, GOProud, which seeks special rights and privileges for lesbians and homosexuals.
But not even David Frum, the supposed beta noire of real conservatives, wants to jettison two-thirds of the conservative coalition.
Frum instead wants to modulate conservatives political approach, not abandon conservatism altogether. Frum, in fact, is a conservative, albeit an iconoclastic and unconventional conservative.
Heres my proposal to which I welcome Norquists response: How about a conversation about raising taxes to help reduce the deficit?
Or maybe we can have a dialogue about the public option? Or better yet, what do you say we talk about how to enforce fair trade on China, Chile and Mexico?
Now, Im not saying we should do any of these things, mind you; Im only saying that we conservatives need to start talking about these things!
Of course, I rather doubt Norquist would welcome a conversation about these matters. Hed rightly say these subjects are off limits...
(Excerpt) Read more at johnrguardiano.com ...
>Libertarians are trying to hijack the movement.
I wrote a book on where Conservatism came from, biologically and evolutionarily. See my profile for the whole story.
The bottom line is there exist three branches of the Conservative movement, because each served our evolutionary plan of using free competition to speed the advancement of our species.
National Defense Conservatives are group Competitors. They seek to engage in group competitions, because they seek to see their own group kept safe, and successful in group competition.
Social Conservatives seek “rules” designed to make our competitions more effective. Monogamy, so after the competition for a mate is over, the result is honored, and mates stay loyal to each other. They seek Morality, as most forms of morality involve not thwarting outcomes of competitions, producing group fusion and group success in competitions, and carefully and selflessly raising children to be successful competitors.
Economic Conservatives seek to see to it that our competitions are waged absent any Anticompetitive thwarting of the competitions through government interference, or redistributive alterations of outcomes.
All three branches are part of the same drive to produce advancement of our species through free competition. All three will hate Anticompetitors and Appeasers. We all need to accomdate each other’s instinctual drives.
Domestically, we need the focus on keeping the three legs of Conservatism together. That means the gays are far too divisive to include in the movement, as their need to be known as gay runs counter to the very instincts towards sexual privacy which underlie our movement’s evolutionary psychology. Efforts to include them are destined to fracture the Competitive Warrior movement, and sow division in our ranks.
On Afghanistan, I do not know the best course. That is a very complicated issue, made more so by historical analyses of societies which engaged in drawn out military campaigns.
Reminds me of a better joke... Woody Allen talked of some relatives ‘on the Island’ who were *very* reformed Jews ... very reformed ... they were Nazis.
Grover was and is a quisling to the conservative cause.
Massoud's blood is the direct responsibility of Bill Clinton and Madeline Albright who thought the remote possiility of a nuclear exchange between Pakistan and India was a greater threat than a sure chance to take out Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaida.
Short of another leader of that character rising out of Afghanistan, it will always be your typical Crapistan backwater. Clinton's betrayal of Massoud ranks right up there with Carter's betrayal of the Shah of Iran, IMHO.
Norquist may have more of a personal motive in taking this position than meets the eye. One, check out his wife. Two, check out his wife. Three, check out his wife.
And finally, check out his wife.
“Norquist is decidedly in the latter camp and seemingly antagonistic of late to cultural and defense cons.”
Norquist has ALWAYS been hostile to Conservatism. Open border, author of Bush’s amnesty...never met a free trade (ie..cheap labor agreement) he didn’t love. As for Afghanistan, that’s just more of his Muslim pandering..yes, he IS a Muslim. He is the one responsible for opening up the Bush white house to Muslim influence and bringing in Abramoff to screw it all up.
More here than you ever wanted, but should have known about Grover. ALL conservatives need to get as far from this guy as possible!
http://towncriernews.blogspot.com/search?q=grover+norquist
By the way, if you smell Norquist involvement, Newt Gingrich isn’t far behind....they’re good buds and think just the same!
My favorite Norquist quote:
Grover Norquist: Field Marshal of the Bush Plan
I started out as a right-winger, and when I retire I want to be a squishy middle-of-the-roader, he jokes, chortling at the thought.
“The article the right-wing press doesn’t want you to read, but which you absolutely must read: Libertarians are trying to hijack the movement.”
You got that right, but they aren’t even good Libertarians. Norquist has several of his henchmen like Steve Moore, head of club for growth, who claims to be libertarian doing damage. He and Moore are largely responsible for destroying prop 187 in calif and watering down the immig. bill of 1998. Newt Gingrich is also a Grover man. They are self interested hacks who don’t care about conservatism or libertarianism.
[snip]In 1996, Moore along with Grover Norquist helped defeat any measures aimed at enforcement in an immigration reform bill.
Marcus Stern describes Moores involvement in an award winning article.
http://towncriernews.blogspot.com/search?q=+The+Club+for+Growth+and+the+2008+Presidential+Race+-+Know+thy+enemy
Another one of their ‘men’ is Cesar Conda, who used to be Dick Cheney’s domestic policy adviser.
Until conservatives learn that this side has been taken over by the likes of Norquist and the damage they’ve done, we make NO progress.
http://towncriernews.blogspot.com/search?q=grover+norquist
Grover Norquist is a nasty piece of work!!
Be Ever Vigilant!!
It looks like the quasi-alliance between moslems and homosexuals is rapidly losing the “quasi.”
bump
The fact that that porcine traitor isn't cooling his heels in Gitmo is one of life's injustices.
Not an apt comparison.
Mullah Norquist (pbuh) has always worked behind the scenes and he has been much too influential over the years.
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.