I agree.
I would also like to expand that thought and include any stage hands, janitors, vendors and or delivery personnel that might have been present at the time as a better option than the Phony-In -Chief that we currently have infesting the WH.
“Think of it as a continuum with utopian socialism anchoring one end and utopian libertarianism at the other.”
Wrong. Dead wrong. Libertarianism is compatible with both leftism and an inconsistent conservatism.
The continuum runs from God on the right to Satan on the left, and none of us is as far to the right has he should be.
Leftists, more heavily influenced by Satan than those to their right, swear by the principle, “No enemies to the left.”
None of us can get far enough to the right that we comfortably accept the contrary: “No enemies to the right.” (Of course, the confusion sown by the father of lies as to what is of the left and what is of the right also contributes to this.)
Wait! we cry. I don’t want to be associated with nutty militias. Some people still think Nazism and Fascism are right-wing. Some have accepted the lie that racism is inherently right-wing. Warmongering?
What is right-wing about these things? Remember the leftard bombings and other violence in the 60s and 70s? Patty Hearst? Bill Ayers? Violence in and of itself is morally neutral: it can be used for good or evil. Leftards like the Shining Path, the Viet Cong, and Argentina’s Montoneros and People’s Revolutionary Army (ERP) used violence for evil.
The United States has, historically, used violence for good, and the militias are (were?) organized solely to oppose those who would use it for evil. (Which is to say, of course, the left.)
If you still think Hitler and Mussolini were right-wingers, I would recommend “Liberal Fascism” by Jonah Goldberg.
The Democrats were the party of slavery, of the 20th-century KKK, and of Jim Crow. George Wallace was a democrat when he kept his promise to stand in the schoolhouse door to prevent Negroes from entering. Eisenhower, who sent troops south to force integration of schools, was a Republican. JFK was a cynical hypocrite who never called Negroes anything but n*ggers in private, but publicly supported the civil rights movement because he wanted their votes.
Lyndon Johnson, who presided over some of the worst race riots in US history, was a Democrat. Because of the mess handed over by LBJ, there were less-severe riots under Nixon in 70-72. (There have been riots since—none under Reagan—but I don’t feel like going into the intricacies of that.)
The Civil Rights act was passed over Democrat opposition. It was Republican votes that swung it.
Who presided over the (completely justified) Mexican-American war? Polk. A Democrat.
The Spanish American War? McKinley, a Republican. Still, a short war and a just war.
WWI? Woody Wilson, a far-left, ivory-tower academic Democrat.
WWII? FDR. The less said about him the better.
Korea? Truman, a Democrat, by showing weakness.
Viet Nam? Eisenhower decided against intervention, and warned John F. CowardlySlimeball against it. Nonetheless, he opened the door, and after that nutball loser commie Oswald shot him, LBJ, a Democrat, rushed in where angels and Frenchmen feared to tread. Nixon, a Republican, extricated us. When he was crippled by the manufactured Watergate hissyfit, democrat fellow-travelers in congress ensured the ultimate communist victory
Panama and Grenada were short—in, mission accomplished, then out. Both in the interests of the US.
Gulf War I? GHW Bush threw the Iraqis out of Kuwait, prevented their planned invasion of Saudi Arabia, then got out—except for a very few forces assigned to enforce UN Sanctions.
Gulf War II? Well, that’s where Dub really paid for not being a solid conservative. As a response to the attacks of September 11, 2001, laudable. Then he started acting like a Democrat.
Make the Democrats take the blame for their own transgressions, and adopt the attitude, “No enemies to the right.” Ain’t nobody over there but God and people who are closer to Him than you or I.
“purity exists only in the mind of the purist. No two people will agree on every single issue unless both have surrendered their brains to an ideology they have memorized.”
Great excuse for compromising one’s principles.
A huge number of people agree on the major issues and most of the minor. We don’t have to agree on our favorite foods or our tastes in music.
The problem arises when someone who wants to represent conservatives (or says he does) disagrees on one of the major issues: liberty, baby-killing, the second and tenth amendments, sodomy, the sanctity of the family, socialized medicine, etc.
Characterizing a properly-formed conscience as surrendering one’s brain to an ideology one has memorized is to open the door to compromise on any issue whatsoever. It is mockery of principle, of the reality of right and wrong, good and evil. It is denigration of a person who holds that some principles are absolute.
This here article is ver’ ver’ deceptive.
I hate to sound cynical, but which of these candidates will actually follow through on that promise? Sad fact is, every challenger will claim to disagree and vow to negate the incumbent's policies, especially the unpopular ones. If the challenger's the same as the one we got now, why vote for him (her)?