Posted on 05/17/2008 2:03:48 AM PDT by MartinaMisc
It was fun while it lasted.
The guaranteed election of a non-conservative President on November 4th represents the end of the conservative movement in America. Neither Barack Obama nor John McCain stands for Reagan principles in any way, shape, manner or form—and after twenty years of non-conservative Presidents, it’s obvious that the Reagan era will never, ever return.
The conservative movement has been in the hospital for nearly two decades. Once George H. W. Bush—a good, moral man, but not a true conservative—entered the White House, conservative principles slowly but surely began to leave. Yes, he gave us a victory in the Gulf War and Clarence Thomas, but he also gave us a broken no-new-taxes promise and David Souter. Bush was more Rockefeller than Goldwater, during a time when America and the world needed more of the latter and less of the former.
Bill Clinton replaced Bush in 1993 and, during his eight years in office, stole certain conservative concepts (NAFTA, welfare reform) and destroyed others (judicial restraint, the rule of law). Clinton moved the country in a secular direction, helping to make the 1990s as culturally loose as the 1980s were culturally traditional. Clinton also seemed obsessed with, among other things, promoting the notion that the Reagan era was a fluke, and that (despite his famous 1996 claim) big government was a permanent reality.
(Excerpt) Read more at humanevents.com ...
That alliance elected Reagan twice and helped the GOP win Congress in 1994.
The “evangelical” crowd is drifting leftward now with guys like Rick Warren and Bill Hybels pushing a different agenda than the abortion one.
This drift is enabling some “evangelicals” to embrace Obama with relish.
So don’t worry, you’re getting your wish without formally kicking anyone out.
Reagan represents the pinnacle of conservative success, however, he was also an aberration. Reagan alone is the one and only break in a long line of socialist presidents dating back to 1932. Some of those presidents were likable and innocent enough, but they did not push for a return to conservative, Constitutional principles. Instead they were happy to add their own big government programs to an already out of control government.
I believe it is time for a new party and some new tactics. Compromising conservative ideals and values is not an option.
>>>>>>There are a few more, but the venal hatred of Newt in this forum is mind boggling.
Not only that, but it is propagated by a cabal of monumentally stupid hillbillies who drop one-line crapograms into every Newt thread, and which are easily proven to be false and staggeringly ignorant with about 30 seconds of Google research.
Of course they never respond once outed. It’s just on to the next Newt thread.
I think there is another side to this, and is born out by income distribution statistics. 1. The vast majority of folks did not profit from the boom 2. Even staying even has required the accumulation of a lot of debt (I am not arguing here the morality or advisability of accumulating the debt, which is a debatable issue - I mean there are plenty of arguments on both sides - but the fact that it undenidably did happen). The result is that we are looking at "correction" where folks are really uneasy because they have a lot of debt that they did not have at the start of the last recession. The dotcom bust affected some highflying speculators and some retirement portfolios, but did not affect joe six-pack's daily life if he was not a dotcom exec. The housing bubble bust affects everyone who thought he owned a home / investment asset of some not inconsiderable value. Remember, for every buyer of an overpriced piece of real estate who has lost his life's savings, there was a seller on the flip side who profitted enormously from the boom part of it.
Of course what the permatouts here would like everyone to think is that well, if you held for the past 7 or 8 years you might not have as much of a gain as you thought you did. But all of us have much higher real estate taxes for that little bit of gain, and an awful lot of property turned over at those inflated prices.
Polls indicate that the economy, housing bust and the war in Iraq are the principal issues for voters. Arguing that they are misguided in their worries - when a lot of them are not the least bit misguided - will just alienate them and cause them to despise you for your condescension and ignorance about what is affecting real people (it killed GWB and creamed Carter).
>>>>And they don’t realize how they have polarized the rest of the country. Reagan Democrats, in particular, fear and loathe “values voters” with an intensity that is hard to believe at first.
Absolutely correct Jim.
They have driven away the middle.
And Rush is as confused about it as many others.
It’s not the RINO’s, it’s the Evangelical Elephants in our living room.
“Newt is. He’s the only true conservative out there.
There are a few more, but the venal hatred of Newt in this forum is mind boggling.
The man is not prefect, but certainly is just about the smartest, most prescient voice in the conservative movement, or what’s left of it. “
Newt? Conservative? Hardly. And yes proof has been given dozens of times, but hang on to that illusion, if you must.
Just one instance among many of Newt’s duplicity....
Remember the “Fairness Doctrine”....which would have shut down conservatives on radio, etc? Newt not only voted for it...he pushed it but was unable to get enough to override a veto.
In the spring of 1987, reacting to the Court’s decision and fearful of its consequences, Congress passed a bill that incorporated the fairness doctrine into the law. It passed with significant bipartisan support, 3 to 1 in the House and nearly 2 to 1 in the Senate. Newt Gingrich and Jesse Helms were among the law’s supporters. President Reagan vetoed the legislation. There were insufficient votes in Congress to override his veto.
Google it, if you still doubt.
“Fairness Doctrine” is simply anti-American
http://gopublius.com/fairness-doctrine-is-simply-anti-american/
These people are essentially entertainment personalities. I think Limbaugh is the most dangerous because he is so incredibly bright and a genuine rascal. It is easy to see why his fans are so loyal. Most of the time I really enjoy listening to him. But, I am horrified when people call in and it is apparent that buy his act as gospel truth. Someone like Hannity, on the other hand, I find irritating, a whiner who never stops complaining. My mother was an angry women so, Coulter, Malkin and Hillary all sound the same to me. I guess I just shut and don’t listen.
“On balance, I’d choose Ron Paul over McCain any day, anywhere.”
Agreed.
The other one I don't get is the venal hatred of Ron Paul, who got a lot of money and has gotten a lot of votes and has a best-selling book. Now I realise that many conservatives look upon libertarians as whacko's and worse enemies than Marxists, but this is part of the hillbilly mentality. For the most part libertarians merely want to get the government back into the constitutional box where it belongs.
The real problem is the branch of conservatism who come across as anti-intellectual - I don't mean anti-marxist-college-professor - but just anti any new ideas. I think this is why they hate Newt so much. He is a fountain of new, well reasoned, pity, relevant approaches to current real world problems.
The other problem that is killing conservatism is their attitude towards what catholic theology would call "venial sins" things that belong between husband, wife and one's confessor. No mortal - we are all sinners - can live up to this standard of behaviour, and the accompanying pride and lack of Christian charity desplayed by these folks is perhaps the most mortal sin of all.
Your post is very poorly reasoned from top to bottom:
>>>>>>If that was the case, then the GOP should be doing better in states where the religious right has less involvement
Not in a national election for president. People don’t live in a statewide vacuum.
>>>>>A socially liberal nation will never be fiscally conservative.
Small government with low taxes (and THAT is conservatism) doesn’t have the funds to engineer culturally liberal spending programs. No money, no program.
>>>>>One of the reasons we don’t have socialized medicine yet here in America is that we’re more socially & religiously conservative
Nope. It’s because we won’t pay for it, because it’s an inferior product and service as most Americans well-know.
>>>>This is why Goldwater was so wrong, and why one of his final political acts before his death was to endorse a federal law to ban discrimination against homosexuals.
Actually he did it to poke a stick in the eye of the reprehensible Evangelical voters.
>>>>>They’re mostly good people - if they were running the country, it would be a better place, for the most part.
I agree they’re nice people, it’s their priorities and methods that I believe are destructive.
I agree. The public will forgive a politician for making an honest mistake. But they have little patience with liars.
>>>>>You are wrong in naming abortion a religious issue.
I never said that.
C’mon, we conservatives can do better than a reheated ex-Speaker who had an approval rating of 28% when he decided not to face a vote for reelection as Speaker.
Newt’s got alot of great things to say - his Contract with America was both political and intellectual genius. He’s just not the right vehicle for the conservative message in 2008. We put up Newt, we remind people of ethics scandals, 3 wives, committing adultery whilst simultaneously impeaching Clinton, hyper-partisanship etc etc.
Gotta do better than Newt, I’m afraid.
>>>>>That alliance elected Reagan twice and helped the GOP win Congress in 1994.
So did the alliance with Reagan Democrats.
Evangelicals like to take all of the credit for Ronald Reagan, which is part of their problem.
Yes. of course politics change. I was born in Memphis in 1944.
My first knowledge of politics was listening to my father cussing Truman, and then his working to elect Ike. (I like Ike) Keep in mind, my family was as conservative as you can get. Both parents were from Atlanta
In my late teens, I remember an acquaintance that was running in a state or local election as a Democrat. I asked why, and he said it was the only way to get elected. As a teen I worked with Pit Hyde, now CEO of Malone/Hyde..Autozone, etc. We went to shopping centers and washed windshields, leaving a note "We washed your windshield so we hope you see your way clear to vote for Nixon/Lodge." Yes, parties change over the years, but the Dems are now the socialist. The concept of southern conservative Democrats is long "Gone With the Wind"
And that's a good example of Newt hatred.
You say it's been proven "dozens of times" that Newt is not a conservative, and then pull out one obscure technical vote from 20 years ago!
Here's what else came from the site your linked to in your post. I guess you forgot to read this page: "Though Gingrich’s foundation work is important, and evidently important to him, the entire basis of that foundation is to devise solutions to the problems facing America. As president, Gingrich would be in the best position not to merely proffer solutions, but to affect real and lasting change. The notion that he should avoid the presidency in favor of relegating himself to a passive role - devising solutions that will never be implemented during a Hillary Clinton presidency - is nonsensical. The time for Gingrich to run is now, and his party should not allow this man of extraordinary talent to avoid his calling."
>>>Gotta do better than Newt, I’m afraid.
Like Democrat Senator John McQueeg?
Good choice. But not mine.
Newt is at the opposite end of the ethical spectrum from McQueeg, IMO.
I agree with your post from top to bottom. Every sentence of it.
So Britain has had abortion-on-demand, gay rights policies, multiculturalism, and hate speech laws for the past 100 or so years, if not longer? There was no radical shift to the left on these things starting in the 60s, symbolized by the purge of Enoch Powell?
iii. the Tory-type party IS the default in Britain - Britain remains at it’s core a deeply conservative country - just not a socially conservative one;
A deeply conservative country wouldn't be capitulating to demands for Muslim prayer calls. Nor would the police detain a schoolgirl for this:
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1495
v. Thatchers reforms will not and cannot be washed away - her key reforms were economic, and those reforms have the full support of 99% of the politicians and 90% of the people of the UK;
Britain itself is about to be washed away. Ditto for other European nations.
vi. the EU is a great deal more circumspect about arrogating power from nation states these days, so actually, I think “England” has some way to run yet - after all, we’ve survived in our current form for almost a millenium so far.
That's true, you've survived a millenium, and you weren't socially liberal during that time, which helps explain it.
You seem to be a socon of the most emphatic kind - your views are now toxic to large segments of the American population. That’s why McCain has thrown you under the bus, and why Republicans of all stripes have thrown W under the bus. You’re toxic.
And McCain will probably win because social conservatives vote for him as the lesser of evils. He'll then toss them in the trash and the party will take a beating unlike any it's seen since 1932 in the 2010 & 2012 elections. And, as always, the party will crawl back to the social conservatives, begging us for support when the economic conservatives fail to do the job.
You’re absolutely within your rights to try to influence politicians to your way of thinking, but 2000 - 2006 was the time - unfortunately, instead of cementing a truly conservative polity, Bush was building up big-gubmint conservatism, and congressional Republicans, aided by lobbyists, were plundering the treasury and fiddling with pageboys.
Can't disagree with you there.
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.