Posted on 02/27/2011 3:51:37 AM PST by RogerFGay
I can't help but notice that the new wave of Tea Party Republicans, said to be on probation until they've proven themselves, have quickly circled their wagons to defend the established RINO culture. To make the point, we might as well start with the extremely popular young senator Rand Paul. But if you're paying attention, you too will notice the “business as usual” talking point repeated by many others.On February 24, 2011, Senator Paul was interviewed by David Letterman. Here is the excerpt that this article addresses.
Letterman: “In this day and age, what does it mean if you're a member of the Republican Party? What are the precepts? What do we stand for?”
Paul: “Well, we wanted to mean something. When I ran, I said the Republican Party is an empty vessel unless we imbue it with values. What I mean by that is kind of what the Tea Party says. You gotta believe in something. I think during many of the Bush years we became just like the Democrats. We could spend money just as fast as the Democrats could and we ran up the debt and that was a problem for me. I thought really that government needs to live within its means.”
Letterman: “Live within its means. So that's the headline for the Republican Party. If you're a Republican, you stand for fiscally responsible government, first and foremost. Is that right?”
Paul: “I think so, and I think that unifies a lot of people.”
Letterman: “And what about the Tea Party. Does that overlap with the Republican precept?”
Paul: “Yeah, and the difference is though the Tea Party … [will] tell you if you don't vote correctly or if you vote with the Republicans when they're voting to bankrupt the country, we'll bring you home too. They're not very shy about it.”
My question: Where's the Constitution – the one that enforces limited government and individual rights?
Let's review. There are three major kinds of conservatives competing to control US politics; social, political, and fiscal.
Social conservatives have proven just as politically dangerous as social liberals. Both favor arbitrary increases in government power and the use of force to intrude upon individual freedom. Both have contributed equally to the collapse of Constitutional rule.
American political conservatives are basically the modern version of classic liberals and the last actual defenders of Constitutional rule in the United States. There must be a structured relationship between government and the people that does not allow arbitrary government intrusion.
Fiscal conservatives are politically equivalent to fiscal liberals. There are no set rules that limit government involvement in anything and everything, just political preferences. They are also often just as much in favor of more government and more spending. If a pork-barrel scheme is promoted as an “investment” of public money that will eventually reduce spending, self-described fiscal conservatives are just as quick to jump on the band wagon as liberals, no matter how weak the argument that more spending equals savings. Over the past three decades, they have frequently voted in favor of arbitrary increases in government power to suit their agenda. They also tend to ally with social conservatives in order to win elections. In one major scam, they pretended arbitrary federal intrusion into marriage and family law would save taxpayer dollars by reducing poverty. Not only did the welfare budget skyrocket as a result, the institution of marriage was destroyed and took out fundamental individual rights with it.
Rand Paul is misleading when he equates fiscal conservative rhetoric with imbuing values in an empty vessel. Fiscal conservatism isn't values, it's a set of relative actions taken in context. We are once again being told to accept a government of people and not of laws. Paul and other new Republicans are not presenting a reformed Republican image. They're reselling the old one, and our experience already tells us that doesn't work and why. Fiscal conservatives do not imbue fundamental rules in the relationship between government and the people in their empty vessel.
Fiscal conservatism is a set of relative actions taken in context. It is not a set of values.
Video link - Rand Paul on Letterman, Feb. 24, 2011
You are basing your whole premise on a few spoken words on David Letterman? I think you must have some personal issue with Rand Paul.
No, no, no. That twisting of logic doesn’t fly. There is a particular structure and defined set of rules to Constitutional limitations to government. Promising to make up a form of limited government as you go along by pretending to not increase spending quite as fast as the other guys would is not even close to the same thing.
Rovian Politics Alert!!!
**They’re different like George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush...right?**
Only real difference is that W did show some spine during 9/11. Otherwise both were pretty wishy washy and allowed the rinos and the Liberals to walk over them.
Bushes were wishy washy... I’m expecting Rand to show himself the KOOK ..just like his Old Man!!
I am well aware that the fedgov is operating outside Constitutional boundaries. I a simply challenging your claim that fiscal conservatives bear responsibility for that.
And I am under no obligation to follow your past writing. You are levelling a specific charge on this thread - that fiscal conservatives do not operate within fundamental rules. So give elaborations, examples. Here.
Oh, and I have read and posted extensively about the Constitution myself here on FR. I even took a position in front of a federal judge during voir dire about a bad SCOTUS ruling that was reversed a few years later. So lose the condescention as well. You are raising a point on a conservative forum - so debate it if you can. Here. That is what a forum is for. If you just want to blog and not have to defend your positions, don't bother posting here, or post your stuff into bloggers.
That is not fiscal conservatism, dude. Actual fiscal conservatism seeks to cut back the growth of government - as Rand Paul has shown he is willing to call for (see recent articles about how he wants to cut Social Security for an example).
You are deliberately warping the concept of fiscal conservatism to try and make your point. Which makes your claim dishonest.
And yet you argue that fiscal conservatism is the equivalent of Constitutional rule. Isn’t that claim just a bit too daft to warrant a response?
Not saying you are right or wrong, just what the article implies.
I think you can understand that just because he did not say the word Constitution in an otherwise reasonable reply is not a sound basis for the argument and why that would seem a little bit of a stretch. Perhaps including some of this other information would broaden the basis of your point.
It is part of Constitutional rule. Not all of it. But if you defund the beast, that is a big step towards de-fanging the beast.
Isn’t that claim just a bit too daft to warrant a response?
Are you pulling a few muscles to try and make your points here?
Methinks you cannot back up your claim rationally, hence your flippant attitude here.
Guess what - once again, don't post your stuff here on FR if you cannot defend it with factual and reasoned posts.
No. I’m actually responding with a great deal of knowledge and experience. Republican Party “fiscal conservatism” hasn’t been real fiscal conservatism for a very long time - if ever. When the papers claim Republicans want to slash spending on something by $100M, it typically means that Republicans have offered a bill that increases spending on that something by $900M and it’s being compared to the Democratic Party’s offering of a $1B increase. Then when you follow it further down the road, you discover that agencies couldn’t figure out how to spend more than about a third of the increase - so it really didn’t matter. That’s “business as usual.”
I can't help but notice that the new wave of Tea Party Republicans, said to be on probation until they've proven themselves, have quickly circled their wagons to defend the established RINO culture.
And you cite:
Letterman: “And what about the Tea Party. Does that overlap with the Republican precept?”
Paul: “Yeah, and the difference is though the Tea Party … [will] tell you if you don't vote correctly or if you vote with the Republicans when they're voting to bankrupt the country, we'll bring you home too. They're not very shy about it.”
That doesn't sound like circling the wagon around RINOs. Sounds more to me like Rand Paul is putting them on notice that they face getting primaried if they don't adhere to Tea Party fiscal conservatism.
Your column is a joke, and a bad one at that.
That’s a very odd presumption - to think that everything I know is in the article. It gives the impression that you want to object to the content but don’t have a real argument.
Hey get pissy if you want, you wrote the stupid article basing it on the Letterman interview.
What a condescending little man you appear to be. At least I now know better than to read any other bit of nonsense that dribbles from your elitist little brain.
The Mens News Daily part should have been a red flag.
I do mention in the article that if you’re paying attention, you’ll have noticed the talking point on many occasions. Don’t wait for me to do all your living and observation and thinking for you.
The interviewer was David Letterman. The audience was people who like watching David Letterman.
Rand Paul was distilling part of the message suitable for the audience at hand. You don’t give infants filet mignon, you give them easily digested pureed applesauce.
If you saw the interview, David Letterman demonstrated either that he is a simpleton, or he thinks he audience is composed mainly of simpletons.
And I don't disagree with that point. Republicans largely abandoned fiscal conservatism during the Bush years. But once again, tell us how Rand Paul is giving spendthrift RINOs a pass. Using the very quotes from Letterman in your column:
Paul: “Yeah, and the difference is though the Tea Party … [will] tell you if you don't vote correctly or if you vote with the Republicans when they're voting to bankrupt the country, we'll bring you home too. They're not very shy about it.”
You contradict your own claim about Rand Paul with what you cite.
Which is what makes your column so lame.
Yeah, that must be it. LOL!
Stuff it, jerk. You're apparently too dense and too full of yourself to notice your own contradictions. I've afforded you the opportunity to make a sufficient fool of yourself on your own thread, and you are so defensive of your precious column that you cannot take reasoned criticism of such, so any further exchanges are a waste of time. You may have the last word, or insult if you so choose.
Defending children in the womb on the principle of their being endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, specifically to life, is as dangerous saying that there is a moral equivalence between homosex and heterosex? You need to look at the red words at the top of the page on FR to see that you've lost your way this AM.
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.