Mitt Romney wins New Hampshire GOP primary

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-mitt-romney-wins-new-hampshire-primary-20120110,0,2443076.story ^ | January 10th | Mark Z. Barabak and Paul West

[TheOldLady]

It's a travesty, a miscarriage of justice, etc., etc.

Let's see. He calls himself the Leader of the Conservatives, so
similarly, I'm going to start calling myself Young and Beautiful.

Yeah, that'll work!

[TheOldLady]

Me three. We have to work to get those idiots to close our primaries. What good does it to to have our candidates selected by our enemies? And no mistake, they're our enemies and want to destroy us. With the help of the RINOs, they'll succeed, too. Three-fourths of the politicians and other people in power in our country are Demwits or RINOs.

We've been purged from the places from which to defend ourselves and take our country back to its founding principles.

[little jeremiah]

Another Ronulan bites the dust

[manc]

totally agree, something has to be done and close our primaries.
I’ve asked the GOP and my rep but no answer as to why we allow kooks, Dems, liberals etc to vote and select our candidate.

[lonevoice]

Another $7 to the FReepathon. :-)

[little jeremiah]

I will add that to my money order tomorrow.

;-)

[Mikey_1962]

I went down with the ship with Nixon. I still have a thank you card from him that I got as a kid.

That was nice of him to do. BUT...

The ways I was disgusted with Nixon are really too many to number but here are a few:

After the first Earth Day Nixon announced the formation of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Other egregious initiatives supported by Nixon included the Clean Air Act of 1970 and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA); the National Environmental Policy Act that required environmental impact statements for many Federal projects.

Even when Nixon vetoed the Clean Water Act of 1972—he objected not to the policy goals of the legislation but to the amount of money to be spent on them.

All these gave much more power to the Federal Government however well intentioned.

[little jeremiah]

Paul stated he thinks “gays” have rights and should be allowed to marry, as well as being one of the 5 Rs who voted to force the military to open the ranks to flagrant homosexuals. That’s factual.

[Psalm 144]

Oh, I understand now. I was just a kid and saw him embattled by circling media and Democrat jackals. He most certainly was a big government Republican, and those such do lie at the heart of most of our problems.

[Mikey_1962]

Yep you nailed it. Nixon wanted to be loved like Kennedy. He gave the Liberals all they wanted and they hated him anyway. Sad.

[byteback]

What is a somewhat Conservative?

Probably a Conservative with Libertarian leanings. Someone who might be for civil unions for example. Maybe they are Pro Life but allow for the incest and rape exemption. Maybe think that pot should be legal or think the TSA is a bit too rigid.

[DoughtyOne]

I wasn't aware of the two stolen counties in Iowa angle.

New Hampshire was not a big surprise for me since Romney is a next door neighbor.

IMO, Paul has a good veneer, but he's rotten to the core underneath.

Well, someone sure should have taken Boehner's job, that's for sure.

Yes, that DeMint endorsement baffles me.  I think sometimes we're too quick to judge someone solid on Conservatism.  At one point folks were champion Christie as a great guy too.

I wasn't old enough to grasp what Goldwater was all about in '64.  I do know that it was Goldwater that caused Reagan to reassess some of his thinking.  That paid off down the line.

I agree that the Republicans have allowed the many leftist moderators and the open primaries facilitating hijacking.

And there's the rub.  Herding cats seems to be the best description of Conservative allignment I've been aware of.

I like Santorum.  Gingrich and Perry both have major issues I can't buy into.  I don't trust either of them.  Problem is, other people do.

I agree with regard to Johnson.  I was stunned by his performance in New Hampshire though.  I hope that was his last shot.  We'll see.

I am hoping Paul has seen his last good showing also.  He's a non-starter for me.

We always came back, because we never had a world-class competitor.  China is quickly becoming that, and we gifted it to them.

Find a way to unite the Gingrich, Santorum, Perry supporters and avoid the defeating stay-at-home effect of Romney.  I agree, but so far people are willing to overlook the Gingrich and Perry baggage.  I can't.  There's no basis for unification under those circumstances.  One numbskull wants us to buy off on the possibility he'll unite with the Left on some things.  The other wants us to buy off on the idea that it's okay if he issues and executive orders infringing on our rights.  Ah, no thanks.

I hope we do get it done.

If we get another 2010 this year, I'll be one thrilled fella.  Yes it was a 180.

[DoughtyOne]

DoughtyOne,your post is like a beacon in the night, and worthy of repeating.  Thank you.  I apprecaite it.

I have resolved myself to make the best of 2012. But after Nov. 6th, the GOP either changes or goes the way of the Whigs. For now, we have to work under the faulty, rusty, weak structure of the GOP because the future of America depends on it.

While there is still time, we have to fight for the candidate of our choice.But, like in 2008, I am getting the vibe that this has all been decided,and,as then, I am not going to be happy with the decision.

Sounds like you're hoping for the best, and expecting the worst.  I hear ya.

Exit82, it seems to me that becoming a true Conservative is much more a process of growth over time rather than a simple one time decision.  Asking yourself why you support the things you do, and taking a hard look at all the issues, is something that doesn't happen overnight.  In fact, if the truth were told, it's something that doesn't truly happen at all most of the time.

My teens were heavily influenced by the Anti-American rhetorical movement of the 1960s.  By the time I was 18, I was firmly in the Republican camp.  At the time I was convinced I was doing the right thing, and as far as my understanding went, I actually was.  Even then, while I was voting for the right people, it didn't really dawn on me that I wasn't fully in tune with Conservatism until many years later.  In fact, I would say that I didn't fully understand Conservatism until the last decade or so.  Today at 60 years of age, I still find myself continually trying to grow as a Conservative.

My motives were sound, but I remained voting against the Leftist candidates more than voting for the sound Conservatives on the right.  In most instances, I believe it all worked out in the end, but it was somewhat blind luck.  I believe many Republicans operate in this mode for most their lives, perhaps all their lives.  I think that's sad.  Who knows, if it hadn't been for Ronald Reagan, I may never have expanded my understanding of Conservatism.

Here's a rather simple approach to explaining the stages of Conservatism, and some of the reasons I believe these stages exist, and will continue to exist.

The Fledgling.

Some people aren't interested in politics.  They remain stunted in their political understanding, and unless they change their mindset, they can remain a political infant their whole lives.

Those that do become interested in politics will do so for a number of main reasons.  They may become interested by watching the news.  Some are influenced by parents.  Others are influenced by peers.  They are influenced by the media.  They are influenced by activists operating under the cloak of legitimacy, teachers professors and clergy, indoctrinating young minds rather than presenting unbiased information and allowing the subject to make up their own minds.  Hillary Clinton was a teen for Goldwater in high school.  A priest took hold of her in her senior year and introduced her to the inner city Chicago, Marxism, and the rest is history.  Some will become interested in politics because they see it as a way to attain power.

Those who come through this process and somehow come down on the side of Conservatism, aren't generally in tune with all the aspects of Conservatism.  No matter how old someone is when they first take this step, they will be a novice.  They may be reacting to something negative they have seen the Left do.  They may simply prefer periferal stances on issues they have seen Conservatives take.  People are busy from the age of 15 to 30.  They are at a stage in their life when they are going to school, developing their careers, starting their families, and caring for young children.  Many spend at least some of their time on religion too.  These people frequently have outside interests on top of all the rest.  Many of them are preoccupied with things not political.  They vote as a Conservative based on a casual relationship with Conservatives and Conservatism at large.  It's like going to church, but never being fully converted.  You think of yourself as a Conservative, but you haven't really put your heart into it.

I don't see this as evil.  This is how life goes for many of us.  In our mid thirties and early forties we begin to see things differently.  Our children are older.  They are going through the final stages of preparing to leave the nest.  We are concerned about what they are influenced by.  We begin to see things differently.  Something we would have let slip by earlier in life, is now something we recognize as having impact on their lifetime decisions, their political outlook, or their lifestyles.  We see what the Left is trying to do, and it's a very rude awakening.  At the same time, we are startled to realize they were doing the same thing to us all along, but didn't see it that way until now.

Even then, some folks don't make the connection.  They see schools as places of honor, a moral high ground where professors hand down knowledge as if straight from the foot of God or something.  They leave their critical thinking at the door, and believe that since a professor has many years of education under their belt, it would be impossible for them to have evil intent.  And yet, whether it is evil intent or not, what many of them are passing off, is evil.  Some of them definitately know what they are doing is wrong.  They wind up supporting the evil that big government always becomes.  IT IS EVIL.

While I've addressed education here, there are other influences, the many facets of the media loom large.  Even religious leaders can get it wrong.  Some people will see what is going on, and others will be oblivious.  Some people go to see a movie and realize from the get-go, that propagandist tactics are being advanced.  Others seeing the movie will do so with their critical thinking turned off.  Almost every movie out there these days is gaming us with propaganda.  The media is.  News, televisions shows, radio... it's a full court press.  Some people get it.  Most don't.

The Seasoned Pro

Going through the process of raising children opens peoples eyes.  They have concern for the young minds in their charge.  They become defensive of those young minds.  The Conservative will become more Conservative during this process.  Even so, they may focus on three to five issues and leave a lot more to exist in the background, something they don't focus on or seem to be aware of.

This Fledgling and Seasoned Pro divisions (if you will) of the Conservative movement probably encompass about 90% of Conservatives.  These people have initial perceptions, enhance them over time, and come to understand some basic aspect of Conservatism quite well.  Still, many of them don't progress through this stage to make it to the next.

This takes place today, because people are busy.  They don't dedicate enough time to learning about Conservatism and trying to protect this nation from what is being done to it.  And then there's the most important reason, one that 95% of Republicans never saw coming.  The Republican Party is not Conservative, and is not at all interested in becoming Conservative, or advancing Conservatism.  We are thought of as radicals, out of the main stream, people to pacify for a vote, but not people to allow into the inner circle or to hold public office.  That's why Mitt Romney appeals to these folks so much.

For this reason, the Republican Party does not even attempt to explain what Conservatism is.  It doesn't even care if Democrats are elected on a regular basis, as long as Republicans remain elected on a regular basis too.  And remaining moderate on the issues, is the Republican Leadership's main tenet, when it comes to electability.

Once you understand this, you've slipped into the rare existence of someone who understands there is more to Conservatism, than voting the straight Republican ticket every election.

Pleading Heart

If you exist in this group, you will probably vote the straight Republican ticket most of the time.  To fail this would allow Leftists more political clout.  Sadly, you will also find times when it's best not to vote the Republican ticket.  Like it or not, the only place we have to go as Conservatives is the Republican Party.  We can't vote for Democrats.  We can't vote for Independents most of the time.  We're stuck with voting for the best candidate we can get.  And yet...

Each election we have to judge whether the person the Republican party has lofted, will do more harm than good to the nation.  In 2008 many of us thought John McCain would harm the nation and there-by the Republican party and vise versa.  We knew he would rule as a consummate Leftist, and if he did he would destroy our ability to present the Republican Party as a Conservative bastian.  He would in effect have destroyed our ability to advance Conservatism, even if only by proxy through the Republican Party vehicle.

Folks, destroying Conservatism's foothold is tantamount to the assassination of Conservatism.  It's the figurative gesture of taking out a gun and shooting Conservatism in the head.  If a political candidate is going to rule as a leftist from the Republican Party, they are going to destroy our ability to sell Conservatism through the Republican Party.  When someone comes to you and says, "Oh, both parties are just the same.", how can you counter that it isn't true after a McCain administration?  You can't.  So at the time McCain ran for office, many folks took a pass.  They were not going to support the idea that the Republican Party, the only viable Conservative vehicle, was Main Street McCainville.  Conservatism could never reside in McCainville, U. S. A.  It could never be sold from McCainville, U. S. A.  Destroy the credibility of the Republican Party, and you've destroyed Conservatism.  Unless...

If you differentiate the Republican Party from Conservatism, then Conservatism's future is not the Republican Party's future.  And here's where a third party comes in.  If the Republican Party cannot see it's way clear to be a Conservative entity, then another party must rise to fulfill that void.  It's a void that will be filled, even if it has to spontaneously arise.  Whether the Tea Party sprang forth spontaneously or not, the public was clamoring for something not Democrat and not Republican.

The public must understand that the Republican Party is not the Conservative Party.  It's sad, but it's true.  When that realization is made, our futre will be bright.

People in this category are compelled to advance Conservatism in some manner.  It should be stated at this point though, that just because a person IS compelled to advance Conservatism in some manner, that is not an indication that a person does reside within this category.

People here must be able to think in the abstract.  They can't rely on party officials and their talking heads to do their thinking for them.  They have to understand that the party elites are concerned with preservation of the party, NOT CONSERVATISM.

You also have to come to the realization that neither Democrats or Republicans are solely concerned with doing what is best for our nation.  With globalization and the One World Order mantra these people operate under, they do not see our nation as something better than other nations.  No matter what they say, they aren't concerned with keeping us fully sovereign or self-determining.  Our borders are not important, because it fits into their world view.  This was one of the hardest things for me to grasp.

About fifteen years ago the idea was presented to me, that the United States was under attack, and that the political figures in the United States were not defending it.  It was a concept I had to ponder over time.  And in time, I came to the realization, that they were right.  Once you understand this, and can accept it, a lot of things begin to be a lot easier to understand.

As elections come and go, we are dismayed at the field of candidates we are asked to choke down despite the indigestion.  Some of us are baffled by this.  People at this level of Conservatism understand why.  It's because the Conservative ideal is not the goal of the Republican Party.

So seldom do Conservative candidates arise, that when they do even folks in our own ranks belittle them.  Folks who have not attained this level of Conservatism yet, make all manner of silly comments about their fair haired preferentials.  "My guy is the only true Conservative out there."  (when he clearly doesn't have clue one)  "My guy was a Conservative decades ago, no matter who he supported."  "My guy was as Conservative as it gets, even if he cheated on his spouses and was so loathed by other Conservatives that he had to step down or get voted out by his own peers."  "Well sure my guy did X, and we criticized Leftists for doing that X for decades on end, but when my guy did X it was a sound thing to do.  It doesn't really matter."

Folks, at this level we have to be completely honest with ourselves.  Conservatism demands it.  A good Christian ethic demands it.  Honor demands it.  Loyalty to the core ideals of our nation demands it.  If our candidate is sound, he/she will attract Conservatives.  If they are not sound, they won't.  It's not all that hard to figure out.

Conservatives ask of their Candidates to be solid with regard to Conservatism.

Have they acted as a Conservative in the past?  If they didn't, did they hit rock bottom and have to reassess?  Do they come up with great sounding excuses, or do they admit they made mistakes and won't do it again?  Was the thing they did so out of line at the time, that there is no getting around it now?  Have they failed to keep their sworn oaths in the past?  If not, why should we believe them today?  Have they exhibited a firm grasp of our founding and founding documents?  Do they comport themselves with this in mind, or do they have to appologize over and over for lapses?

Folks, as a Conservative we MUST have some sort of elimination process.  We not only must have core beliefs, but we must be true to those core beliefs.  Don't come here trashing Leftists for doing things for decades, then support some guy that has done the same things with an (R) after his name.  If you do, you're being a world-class hypocrit.  Pleading Heart Conservatives WILL NOT countenance that in themselves, let alone others.

Pleading Heart Conservatives want to know how candidates see:

The Right to Life
Respect for and support of the Citizens of the United States and their individual freedoms and God given rights
What impact will this have on families, communities, cities, regions, states, the nation, and the world at large?
Have they placed the sanctity of high ideals and our nation's well being above their own self-interest, without betraying our sound self-interest?
Sovereignty
Self-Determination
Defense of the homeland in all aspects
Defense of our own culture, appreciation for the spice of most cultures, but at the same time refusing to see our culture swamped by a flood of other cultures
A refusal to see incompatable people granted entrance into our nation, AT ALL
The Capitalist system, and the implementation of sound business practices
A refusal to aide a foreign nation that has eyes on replacing the U.S. as the world's hegemon, through economic and or treasonous acts, or by military means
Land Rights
The U. S. Constitution
National Defense
Big Government
Big Government Spending
Taxation
International relations / the global players their and our interactive dynamics
Education, how it is being used by a massively lopsided ideological group to indoctrinate our youth
Media, how it is being used by a massively lopsided ideological group to indoctrinate our youth, and our adults

I've probably forgotten to include a few more concepts in this list, but this all matters, every bit of it.  If I missed something, I'd like to be reminded of it.  Lets keep that in mind too.

If a person has shown no interest in being a solid player on a good portion of this, they aren't someone I'm intersted in leading our nation forward.

If a person has shown no interest in being a solid player on a good portion of this, and you still support them, then you need to have a conversation with yourself.  Nobody but you will to be able to facilitate the change you must incorporate into your political belief system.

I'm not trying to force you to do it.  That would be a Leftist tactic.  I am asking you to make the right choice.  Many people here already have.  You may be one of them.  Now is certainly a good time to think about it.  Yes, even for me, I try to review my steadfastness to this concept on a regular basis.

The Pleading Heart Conservative will be looking for ways to convey this to others.  They will be driven to achieve this.

Have we seen this from our party leaders?  It was the realization of this that caused me to come to the conclusions I have.

This is not directed at you Exit82.  The last couple of paragraphs may have almost seemed like it, but they weren't.

You take care.

D1, your aspiring Pleading Heart Conservative...

[DoughtyOne]

What is a somewhat Conservative?

Probably a Conservative with Libertarian leanings.

Well okay, but then doesn't that make the person a Libertarian rather than a Conservative. Shared values don't make you sortof something else.  It's merely a zone of like-mindedness between ideologies.  You would still be a full blown Conservative.  Any movement toward Liberalism over Conservative ideals soon leaves you unable to claim Conservatism any longer.  At least IMO it does.  I imagine it has to do with our perception here too.  My vision of "a somewhat slice of the pie" is certainly less than half, perhaps even less than one third.  If you're only 1/3rd a Conservative, I'm not sure you're somewhat a Conservative in the true sense.  You're more a Libertarian with some leanings toward Conservatism.

It's sort of like the Census Bureau trying to call someone black, because a great great great grand-parent was black.

Someone who might be for civil unions for example. 

Good example.  I might counter this a rather core belief, because it impacts on Conservative ideals far more than most folks think it does.  If a person believes in civil unions, they essentially believe in a homosexual end run on marriage.  If they believe in this, they will most likely believe homosexuals should be presented as pretty close to equal with the heterosexual lifestyle.  If they believe in this, they are probably going to buy into the idea that children should be presented with homosexual heros so early in life that they aren't able to discern what it is the education system is trying to advance.  If they believe in this, they have pretty well bought into the homosexual agenda, and are ready to buy into more of it.  Pretty soon you are unable to loft any objection to what the homosexuals want our culture to accept.

For me this is really a slippery sloap issue.  You start buying into it, and all of a sudden, you're hip deep in problematic areas.  (no puns intended)

Maybe they are Pro Life but allow for the incest and rape exemption.

Well, I would have to agree here.  Shoot the rapist and the perpetrator of incest.  ;^)

Maybe think that pot should be legal...

A debatable point...

...or think the TSA is a bit too rigid.

...or find the fact that the TSA does exist in it's current form, to be a complete violation of our civil rights.

Every time I come into contact with these drunken (with power) louts, I expect to hear, "Do you want fries with that?", or "Shall we change that filter today too?"

You know, anyone willing to check out Granny's spread butt-cheeks is never going to get the kind of respect from me that they so richly think they deserve.

I guess that's rather shallow of someone who thinks they shouldn't be groping my wife either, or groping little kids and making them disrobe too.

[exit82]

DO, many, many thanks for your extensive reply.

You and I are of similar vintage and experiences.

Although I am in full agreement, this is the section that jumped off the screen at me:

You also have to come to the realization that neither Democrats or Republicans are solely concerned with doing what is best for our nation. With globalization and the One World Order mantra these people operate under, they do not see our nation as something better than other nations. No matter what they say, they aren't concerned with keeping us fully sovereign or self-determining. Our borders are not important, because it fits into their world view. This was one of the hardest things for me to grasp.

About fifteen years ago the idea was presented to me, that the United States was under attack, and that the political figures in the United States were not defending it. It was a concept I had to ponder over time. And in time, I came to the realization, that they were right. Once you understand this, and can accept it, a lot of things begin to be a lot easier to understand.

I first realized this in 1996, just about FIFTEEN years ago, as you said. It was during the Dole v. Clinton campaign that I realized that in spite of the destruction of Clinton, the GOP was not that heavily invested in the outcome when they appointed Dole. Between 1993 and 1996 my heart ached for my country. That heartache did not abate until January 20, 2001, when Clinton left office. I became active in Freeperdom in the fall of 1998, attending rallies in DC and then in '99 and '00, demonstrating with the DC Chapter at the White House when I could get there on Saturdays.

What surprised me was the capacity of my fellow countrymen from Feb. 1999 on, to not care about the leadership of the Dems and their caustic effect on our Country. The more radical the view, the more apathetic Americans seemed to become. We have seen this since Jan. 2007 and the Dem ascent to power--five year of reckless, agenda driven madness, the consequences of which we will feel for years to come.

The blatant corruption and lawlessness of this Administration and President are appalling. This election is ours to lose, and dadgummit, the GOP seems intent to lose it. I look at this entire field and want to vomit.

People who respect me ask my opinion, and for the first time, I cannot tell them what to do.

Our chances of seeing Zero re-eloected are very good, in spite of what all the paid pundits are saying. Clinton got re-elected in 1996 and he certainly deserved no such thing.

In Reagan in 1980 I felt we had a leader, and a leader who unabashedly loved this country and what it stood for, and what its promise could be. Papa Bush squandered what took so long to gain in one year: 1992.

I thought we had someone that could be such a leader again in 2000 in George Bush, but he was weak and indecisive until 9/11/01, when he proved to be a good leader in a time of great crisis. What should have been a cakewalk in 2004 turned into a nailbiter won by the slimmest of margins,needlessly. Then, the whole second Bush term was like a bad dream.

When McCain became the nominee in 2008, we were doomed, and we tried our hardest to drag that old SOB across the finish line, but he would not go.

This time, the only leader I saw with the fight, the vision and the love of country was Sarah Palin, and she chose not to enter the ring.

Now look what we have left. For any one of them, I have to sacrifice priniciples, for some more than others.

But, I trust none of them fully to do the right thing. All I know is, I am sick of being oput in this position by the GOP. They are hellbent and determined that Mittwit will be the nominee, and Mittwit will be destroyed by Obama and the Dems. His "electability' is a myth, but they refuse to see that. This is like seeing the iceberg but being unable to change the course of a doomed ship.

After November 6th,real dmaage will be done to this nation, And only a new political vision will prevail to save it. But it may be too late.

DO, thank you for a thought provoking essay. Thoughtful treatises like this is what has been missing from FR for a long time now.

May Almighty God have mercy on America and keep the Angel in this whirlwind.

[byteback]

If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

-Ronald Reagan

[DoughtyOne]

If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

-Ronald Reagan

I appreciate the supplying of these comments by Reagan.  They are interesting.  I will tell you that it becomes hard for me personally to make direct connections between Liberalism, Libertarianism, and Conservatism, as it relates to the players at our nation's founding.

For one thing, this being a British Colony, the status quo would be the British government and it's players.  Our perceptions would hing on whether we were symapthetic to the British or to the break-away colonists our Founding Fathers.

I would see our Founding Fathers as Conservatives to a new cause.  The Crown saw them as traitors to the Crown.

I do see Libertarian leanings in our Founders.  I see Conservative leanings in them as well, loyalists to a new nation, and trying to instill freedoms for the first citizens of the United States.

Today's Liberal would in my mind be the traitors to the new nation.  There again, I'm sure the British saw this in the exact reverse.

I tend to try to keep these definitions in the present.  It avoids having to deal with drifts in beliefs.  Even then I do make some allowances for the fact that I might not be taking as much into consideration as I should be.  It should also be noted that in the early part of the 20th Century, Liberalism wasn't a dirty word.  Going back 150 years prior to assess who was a liberal and who wasn't, thus becomes even more problematic.

If by addressing Conservatism, we are actually addressing the Republican party of today, I agree that it has drifted far into the Liberal or Leftist direction.  I do not think of Conservatism this way.  I have stopped thinking of the Republican Party in terms of Conservatism.  The party just doesn't make this possible any longer, for me.

As for Conservatism, I do believe it is more willing to buy into foreign entanglements than the Libertarian movement is, but (at least IMO) it has become so based on the realities of a shrinking world.  I don't see this like I see the British at the zenith of their globalist ventures.  Today foreign entanglements can spread half-way around the world in a matter of days.  If we're talking a direct military exchange, we could be talking minutes or hours.  In the days of the British Empire, it would take months for this.

Some nation or another, perhaps even a movement like Fundamentalist followers of Islam will implement hegemonic efforts around the world.  The United States tries to limit the effectiveness of this, by having our diplomats and military members spread out across the planet.  I know this disturbs some people.  I used to feel that way myself.  Today I realize that if we pull back, someone will fill the void.  We simply cannot pull back to our own soil, and try to avoid any foreign entanglements.

I do agree that there are some shared beliefs between Conservatism and Libertarianism.  As for the Liberals or Leftists, they pretty much stand alone, but I have come to believe that when it comes to the military, the Left and the Libertarians come fairly close to a unified vision.  Perhaps someone can make a case causing a level of clarification on that, but it has been very disconcerting for me to see some of the things the Left and the Libertarians believe.  Things like the 09/11 Trutherism amazes me.  Wanting to take a paring knife to the military is another shared belief between them, IMO.

I see the Left as a direct threat to this nation.  Obama is a great example of why.  I don't view the Libertarians to be as much a threat, but when it comes to tenets concerning the military, I'll admit to being in a place where I could quite easily be convinced.

These are my thoughts on the subject.  Take care.