Replies

Frankly, I just do not see too much fondness for limited government within this very site much less from most people that call themselves conservatives. For to really have a fondness for limited government one has to embrace free trade, more avenues for legal immigration to occur, less advocacy for laws that restrict the liberty of others -- particularly at the federal level -- and less adoration for just about every other populist opinion that comes out of the mouth of Bill O'reilly or Michael Savage's pie-holes.

I agree with what you had to say. I am for free trade, legal immigration, limited government, etc. Unlike a lot of folks on here, I don't pay much attention to radio or TV pundits except occasionally. I prefer to read and think for myself!

You gotta understand, Joe, that many of these faux conservatives, here and elsewhere, became Republicans out of a sense of family duty rather than any ideological attraction. Ma and Pa were Republicans, so their offspring are inclined that way, too.

As the Republican Party historically was the party of high tariffs, strictly controlled immigration and blue laws, you might say these people are just getting back to their roots. That would be "true conservatism" in the traditional sense.

These days, labels are next to useless when describing a person's political leanings. One of the favorite "conservative" Republican candidates for president on this forum, Rep. Duncan Hunter, is a protectionist, is anti-immigration and worries about the effects of internet porn, for example.

How does he differ in any substantive way from Pat Buchanan, whose fan club deserted Free Republic years ago (or were booted off, I'm not sure)?

Hunter is a militarist and supports the Indefinite War on Terror.

So he's apparently a real conservative, while Pat is a "paleo."