It's called THE Conservative movement.
Posted on 09/28/2003 7:06:16 PM PDT by Richard-SIA
This is my "Vanity" post of my profile. It is inspired by the responses to my recent quiry on the meaning of "Neo" and "Paleo" conservative and the respones I got. --------- I guess I have begun to have some doubts as to weather or not I should continue to describe myself as a "Republican".
I have been registered and voted republican since I turned 18 (now 49), but of late I have been repulsed by some of the stands and activities of "The Republican Party".
So I have begun viewing FR, with an eye to learning more about where the party is headed, and why.
I have strong opinions, on a variety of topics, and am not shy about sharing them.
With outrages such as Pres. Bush stating he "would sign a new AW ban" if it crosses his desk, the almost total lack of genuine effort to control our borders, the pandering to illegal alien invaders, and the several unconstitutional provisions of the post 9-11 "Patriot Act" etc. I have to wonder if I should not find a different party to work with?
I am a member of our county central committee, local (R) precinct captain, past delegate to several county and state conventions, and have sat on county and state platform committee's. So I am clearly involved in republican politics.
I am also a gun owner and life NRA member, who believes I would not be alive today if I had not had a firearm available some years ago to fend of a band of six "Crips" who were intent on robbing my home and business. I was one of the main instigators of the pro RKBA "Freedom Rallies" held at the Nevada capitol in Carson City, July 4th of 1994-96 I know that virtually every "gun control" law on the books is unconstitutional, so null and void from it's inception. Those imprisoned under those laws are political prisoners.
I frequently testify at Nevada legislative hearings, and occasionally submit letters to the editor.
I believe the constitution and bill of rights were written in plain English, they are not "living documents" and are not subject to "reinterpretation to fit the times".
I support the Fully Informed Jury Act, and jury nullification, as one of the ultimate powers of the citizens to control government abuse of authority.
No, there is no chance I will ever become a "libertarian", or vote for one. I find the libertarians to be a front for the Dope lobby, and election spoilers.
This is not be a comprehensive list of my stand on issues, just a thumbnail which I may expand as time and the mood permit. --------- I find myself wondering just how splintered both parties have become, do the traditional labels, "Republican", "Democrat", conservative vs liberal, etc. even have any real meaning any more? Arnie Swartenegger, John McCain, Tom Mclintock, and both Bush's all call themselves republicans.
Or have the mass media and internet posted confusion rendered all such labels meaningless with the endless variations in interpetation?
I am fairly new here, this is not intended to be troll bait, or to ignite a flame war, just to obtain some satisfactory answers on exactly where the "republican" party stands these days.
It's called THE Conservative movement.
For instance, Pat Buchanan publically praised the anarchist/nihilist rioters in Seattle a few years ago.
Ditto their stance vis a vis the Israel/Palestinian conflict.
Name some. Praising FDR isn't anything I've ever heard called conservative. Then again neither is a nationalized healthcare plan or wars fought for something that quite frankly didn't exist at the levels we were told. But all these things are done in the name of 'conservatism'. That is at least Irving's version
-snip-But the antiwar conservatives have gone far, far beyond the advocacy of alternative strategies. They have made common cause with the left-wing and Islamist antiwar movements in this country and in Europe. They deny and excuse terror. They espouse a potentially self-fulfilling defeatism. They publicize wild conspiracy theories. And some of them explicitly yearn for the victory of their nation's enemies.
Common cause: The websites of the antiwar conservatives approvingly cite and link to the writings of John Pilger, Robert Fisk, Noam Chomsky, Ted Rall, Gore Vidal, Alexander Cockburn, and other anti-Americans of the far Left.
Terror denial: In his column of December 26, 2002, Robert Novak attacked Condoleezza Rice for citing Hezbollah, instead of al-Qaeda, as the world's most dangerous terrorist organization: "In truth, Hezbollah is the world's most dangerous terrorist organization from Israel's standpoint. While viciously anti-American in rhetoric, the Lebanon-based Hezbollah is focused on the destruction of Israel. 'Outside this fight [against Israel], we have done nothing,' Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, the organization's secretary-general, said in a recent New York Times interview." The sheik did not say, and Novak did not bother to add, that Hezbollah twice bombed the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, murdering more than 60 people, and drove a suicide bomb into a Marine barracks in October 1983, killing 241 servicemen.
Espousing defeatism: Here is Robert Novak again, this time on September 17, 2001, predicting that any campaign in Afghanistan would be a futile slaughter: "The CIA, in its present state, is viewed by its Capitol Hill overseers as incapable of targeting bin Laden. That leads to an irresistible impulse to satisfy Americans by pulverizing Afghanistan." And here is Patrick Buchanan that same day gloomily asserting that the United States would be as baffled by Osama bin Laden as the British Empire was by George Washington: "We remain unrivaled in material wealth and military dominance, but these are no longer the components of might… . Our instinct is the strongman's impulse: hit back, harder. But like British Lobsterbacks dropped in a colonial wilderness, we don't know this battle, and the weapons within our reach are blunt."
Excuse-making: On September 30, 2002, Pat Buchanan offered this explanation of 9/11 during a debate on Chris Matthews's Hardball : "9/11 was a direct consequence of the United States meddling in an area of the world where we do not belong and where we are not wanted. We were attacked because we were on Saudi sacred soil and we are so-called repressing the Iraqis and we're supporting Israel and all the rest of it."
Conspiracy-theorizing: Justin Raimondo, an Internet journalist who delivered Pat Buchanan's nominating speech at the Reform party convention in 2000, alleged in December 2001 that Israel was implicated in the terror attacks of 9/11: "Whether Israeli intelligence was watching, overseeing, collaborating with or combating the bin Ladenites is an open question. . . . That the Israelis had some significant foreknowledge and involvement in the events preceding 9/11 seems beyond dispute." Raimondo has also repeatedly dropped broad hints that he believes the October 2001 anthrax attacks were the work of an American Jewish scientist bent on stampeding the U.S. into war.
Yearning for defeat: On January 30, 2002, Eric Margolis, the American-born foreign editor of the Toronto Sun, appealed to the leaders of the Arab world to unite in battle against the U.S. "What could Arabs do to prevent a war of aggression against Iraq that increasingly resembles a medieval crusade? Form a united diplomatic front that demands U.N. inspections continue. Stage an oil boycott of the U.S. if Iraq is attacked. Send 250,000 civilians from across the Arab World to form human shields around Baghdad and other Iraqi cities. Boycott Britain, Turkey, Kuwait, and the Gulf states that join or abet the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Withdraw all funds on deposit in U.S. and British banks. Accept payment for oil only in Euros, not dollars. Send Arab League troops to Iraq, so that an attack on Iraq is an attack on the entire League. Cancel billions worth of arms contracts with the U.S. and Britain. At least make a token show of male hormones and national pride."
-snip-
(David Frum [National Review] in Frontpage Magazine, March 25, 2003)
http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/Printable.asp?ID=6818
There you go!
If I am not mistaken...did'nt FDR start out his "political" life as a "Republican"? Then when uncle Teddy had his falling out later switch?? Heck I might be wrong about that....But then again that's why I'm asking.
I am curious how you reconcile your attitude that the government has no business regulating or outlawing firearms because they might be a danger to the owner or others with the idea that government is justified in regulating or outlawing some drugs because they might be a danger to those who consume them or others.
He takes from the extreme arm of the paleocons and paints us all as Buchanan. Why? Because the majority of paleocons are not like Pat but when slinging mud he has to do something. Ship his tail back to Canada
All I know, it beats the alternatives.
He may have. Of course in the early 20th, Republicans still had a streak of progressiveness attached to their name from the days of lincoln. I imagine if he did switch, it was probably along the time the Democrats became the Progressive party. Either way, Kristol praises FDR and Wilson as being stalwarts of conservatism in the 20th century
It might have something to do with the fact that no clause of the Consitution mentions, "...the right of the people to keep and bear dope and remain stoned..."
I agree, and those gritted teeth are hard on the molars, though, aren't they?
Tell me what they are and I'll tell you if I'm one
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.