Well, then how do you define conservative if not limited government and defending the Constitution?
and deny that the GOP turns its back on conservatives. If that were true why does the RATmedia get hysterical at the prospect of GOP control.
Instead of moving towards restoring Constitutionally-limited government, tehir main prioity is to create a new entitlement program for seniors. To me, that is turning their back on conservatives.
A "conservative" who cannot get elected is of no use to me or the GOP. MOst are simple cranks or one-note sambas not viable political leaders.
Clearly, you're not paying attention. Read teh platforms of conservative organizations and third parties. They cover a wide range of issues from a perspective of principles -- the principle of limited, Constitutional government, whcih is what I thought conservatives were supposed to be trying to conserve.
It is clear that W. is the most conservative electable president
If so, that is sad. But the country seems to be moving right, so maybe the next President will be somewhat more conservative -- if conservatives fight for our principles and stop blindly supporting liberals if they put Rs after their names.
yet that didn't stop the true "conservatives" around here from attacking him as a "socialist", "liberal" and many other brainless pregoratives.
First of all, it's "pejoratives." Don't you words you don't know in an effort to impress people.
Conservatives here and elsewhere have made POLICY criticisma of Bush. On numerous issues, he has not only not taken a conservative position, he has advanced the liberal position. There obviously will be compromises in politics, but as I said, the Republicans -- who are supposed to be "our" party -- should be trying to move the ball in our direction. Instead, they can't wait to hadn out more of my money to the elderly and to set up a new Cabinet department. Does that sound conservative to you? If not, why shouldn't conservatives criticize these things?
Government grows because that is what the people want. When the people are convinced that it shouldn't then it won't.
So if the people want socialism, we should just give it to them? Never mind what the Constitution says, right?
Did you look at the election returns? The people are voting Republican, expecting that it's the right-of-center party. The people are moving right, yet the Republicans want to increase government power, cost, and intrusiveness even more.
Shrinking government will never come from those screeching in the corner for all or nothing.
You obviously haven't read my previous comments or those of the people who express reservations about the Republicans. No one is demanding that they give "all or nothing." But some progress back in our direction would be useful. And it would solidify and increase Republican support. It would be good policy and good politics. Yet the GOP won't do that.
It can only happen when the people are determined to cut it off at the source- taxes.
Taxes are important, and I have long said that I'm for any tax cut for anybody at any time, including the Democrats' proposal to cut the payroll tax. I'm also for ending the income tax, and as a way station on the way to doing so, for ending withholding. But taxes are not the only issue. Spending is the issue, and even when Republicans cut our taxes (which is good), they increase non-defense spending. That isn't conservative.
And it will not be a 180 degree turn but slowly.
I agree with that. However, as I have said before, you have to start turning the car around and moving in our direction. Instead, the Republicans continue driving off the cliff, albeit more slowly than the Dimmycraps. And they betray us on social issues, too. So why do conservatives give them such automatic support?
Anyone who is a Republican is not necessarily a conservative. Why not support a conservative alternative when the Republicans act like Democrats Lite?