[snip] Very true. At one time conservatism stood for limited government and personal freedom. No more. Today, conservatism stands for an ever increasing, ever encroaching federal monstrosity, promoted in the name of bipartisanship and compassion. Nothing illustrates this reality more than President Bush's proposed budget.
Absolutely true. I personally trace this sad state of affairs back to the Gingrich lead Congress wherein he and the Republicans argued "Oh look its not that bad we grow the government at 7percent instead of 11percent." What a joke.
[End Snip] Read what was written. In order to govern, the Republicans must get elected. Since the Courts routinely ignore the Constitution, minorities ARE NOT protected ... minorities like upper middle class and upper class tax payers who are gouged to subsidize income transfers to the friends of the Democrat (who are buying the votes.) In order to get back to a more limited government ... law suits are totally useless. One must get elected.
But to get elected, the conservatives can't just show up saying we will shutdown Medicare and Social Security and return to the very limited Constitutional government of yesteryear. The conservatives would be defeated big time, and the Democrats would reign supreme for the next 200 years.
No ... Gingrich tried to show that he wasn't a meanie who would abandon the senior citizens. He wasn't planning on cutting Medicare, he wasn't going to take Social Security away from them. Gingrich was a smart conservative who was going to try to incrementally "wean" people off government, with the idea that people could learn that paying the government to do what they could do themselves was far too costly ... in taxes, in loss of growth opportunities, and in loss of personal freedoms.
But Newt got cut off at the knees, by lying Democrats and the willing accomplices in the Media, who claimed his plan would do all the horrible things that it wouldn't.
So ... if Newt lost big time because of PERCEPTIONS ... HOW THE HELL can any conservative win if they act more conservative than Gingrich did???
Unless you can come up with a plan that would garner 51% of the votes ... and true conservatives are only 30% - 40% of the electorate, while there are 30% - 40% of the electorate who would actually like to vote for disciples of Karl Marx ... then that squishy middle 20% - 35% are won over by convincing them you aren't heartless and cruel .. you will be compassionate.
Unless you are willing to go wage a revolution - bombs and bullets, try to kill off the socialists, try to make the nation ungovernable - you had better learn to try to persuade people - on their terms. And starting a battle is dangerous ... more of the squishy middle voted Democrat when they thought Timothy Veigh was the end result of typical conservative planning. (Hell - he set back the conservative movement, and helped Clinton get back on the road to electability. His actions helped Clinton paint Newt and talk show people like Limbaugh, G Gordon Liddy and others as radical people who were inspiring terrorist actions like what McVeigh did. So don't start a war unless you are prepared to kill off 30% of the nation! ...because once started, the left winger would prefer to have martial law and a Stalinist state over a limited government state, and there are too many people who would be willing to deliver!!
Mike
But to get elected, the conservatives can't just show up saying we will shutdown Medicare and Social Security and return to the very limited Constitutional government of yesteryear. The conservatives would be defeated big time, and the Democrats would reign supreme for the next 200 years.No ... Gingrich tried to show that he wasn't a meanie who would abandon the senior citizens. He wasn't planning on cutting Medicare, he wasn't going to take Social Security away from them. Gingrich was a smart conservative who was going to try to incrementally "wean" people off government, with the idea that people could learn that paying the government to do what they could do themselves was far too costly ... in taxes, in loss of growth opportunities, and in loss of personal freedoms.
But Newt got cut off at the knees, by lying Democrats and the willing accomplices in the Media, who claimed his plan would do all the horrible things that it wouldn't.
So ... if Newt lost big time because of PERCEPTIONS ... HOW THE HELL can any conservative win if they act more conservative than Gingrich did???
First, Newt did not "lose big time." I hate this myth. Newt had THE UNIBANGER on the ropes, until the RINOs caved in. The budget showdown of '95 was where Newt was going to put away Clinton for good. The polls were going his direction, but the RINOs caved in, and with that, the majority. Clinton came out the winner, and America loves a winner. One more week, and Clinton was a goner...
The House has been GOP since '95. Newt was not defeated "big time."
You say that we have to get elected to get change. We have to go along with the liberal agenda to get elected. Now, what is the point of getting elected, if you don't implement your agenda? If you lead, people will follow. FDR did it, and so can we. When you get power (we had it in '95 and '01), you go for it, let the press say the sky is going to fall, and when it does not - you consolidate. The Left is good at this, so why can't we?
The answer, is we like to be liked. As long as we are a slave to being liked by Hollywood and the NYT, it is never going to happen.