Compassionate Conservatism Lost

Townhall.com ^ | Wednesday, November 8, 2006 | Herman Cain

[bella1]

110% correct. Think i will copy and paste this and send to a few Republican groups.

[af_vet_rr]

Dang....the piling on is pitiful.

All of the things in this article was KNOWN in 2003...Bush was reelected in 2004

The difference is, people were afraid to criticize members of the party, and were focused on unity to keep the Democrats out of power. Well, guess what, the Democrats are in power, and we can either go over and huddle in the corner and suck our thumbs and play along with the Democrats, or we can do something about cleaning up the party and getting it back to its roots.

[dalereed]

"Conservatism IS Compassion!"

If you want to be that way, fund it with your money, not mine!

Compasonate Conservative is just a fancy way of saying i'm a socialist!

[Small-L]

...Bush was reelected in 2004.

And his majority was?

Even in 2003, staunch conservatives were complaining to the Republican PTB, and warning what would happen. Apparently in their "compassionate arrogance," they didn't listen. Unlike Dummies, the Republican base won't just vote for anyone with an R after his name. They expect their representative to vote like Republicans, not Demo-lites.

[WatchingInAmazement]

All of the things in this article was KNOWN in 2003...Bush was reelected in 2004.

Did you forget that he ran against John Kerry? Hell, even Clinton won when he was offered up Bob Dole.

[meandog]

The difference between a conservative, a liberal and a libertarian--an anaology:

A conservative meets a homeless alcholic on the street who asks him for a dollar; he yells a few obsentities at the man for being a bum and a drunk then passes him by, ignoring the principles of the Christianity he wears on his sleeve.
A liberal meets the same man, grabs him against his will, stuffs him in his vehicle and takes him to a AA shelter which is supported by tax dollars (none of which the drunk wants) then forgets about him and tells himself he's done a good deed. Suffering from the DTs, the drunk later dies.
A libertarian meets the man and gives him a dollar to help buy a bottle of Thunderbird.

[MichiganConservative]

All of the things in this article was KNOWN in 2003...

And that's why people like me did not vote for Bush in '04. I figured he'd be a sell-out. I voted straight R this time because I can't stand Granholm and Stabenow and wanted the MI legislature to remain Republican. They actually passed a CCW law, castle doctrine and partial-birth abortion ban (the Canadian Bitch vetoed he last one there).

[rhombus]

2006 is going to be the start of the Conservative base taking back control of the GOP. We can hope, but we need a leader.

We need more than that we need concrete positions on the messy issues...not just platitudes. Sure we agree that lower taxes are important and reduced Gov't spending...What about Iraq & the War on Terror? Social Security? Health care costs? This mythic LEADER must vocalize positions on these issues that make people want to vote for conservatives - not simply against the socialistic practices of the Democrats.

[Txsleuth]

The Republicans in the House and Senate didn't HAVE to be a 'compassionate' Conservative.

They could have sent bills with less spending...they could have voted down some of the bills...

But, they didn't, did they??

Maybe THEY have something to do with their own downfall...right?

[MACVSOG68]

Now that Democrats have seized control of the House, and possibly the Senate, the president is poised to deliver the knockout blow to conservative voters, the conservative movement and the very Constitution itself. In a most bitter twist of irony, Democratic control of Congress would finally allow Bush to enact his amnesty scheme for the tens of millions of illegal aliens within our borders. Amnesty for illegal aliens is not compassionate, nor is it conservative. It is unconstitutional.

We have no one to blame but ourselves. We had a great opportunity to formulate a reasonable immigration reform package, but the House stood firm in the face of dozens of polls showing Americans wanted comprehensive immigration reform...and wanted some type of path to citizenship for those already here. We blew it!

Instead we concentrated on pathetic attempts to amend the Constitution for social issues, arguing against evolution across the country, and refusing any compromise on stem cell research. Add to that the ridiculous display by Congress to step into state business during the Terri Schiavo fiasco, while forgetting entirely what a Republican congress should be doing to hold back the growth of government while ignoring comprehensive energy legislation, and it's no wonder some ask where the leadership was.

[shekkian]

On a side note, I'm still waiting to hear from Michael Moore. (Not that I look forward to it.)

[Txsleuth]

Okay...then you can complain...you didn't vote for him

Those that did, KNEW that he was for a comprehensive immigration policy...and yet haven't quit griping that he wants one, for over 2 years!!! DUH!!

[rhombus]

The Republicans in the House and Senate didn't HAVE to be a 'compassionate' Conservative. They could have sent bills with less spending...they could have voted down some of the bills... But, they didn't, did they?? Maybe THEY have something to do with their own downfall...right?

Ding, ding, ding...we have a winner. In many cases I remember Bush having trouble because Conressional Republicans were too much with the Democrats (Gang of 14 anyone?)

[Old North State]

I can think of three things that the Republican Party should learn from this election result.
1. About 80% of blacks will NEVER vote for a republican. They want priority treatment from the government and the democrats will always be able to out-pander republicans because they do not have to worry about their base, which also wants to pander to minorities.
2. About 80% of Latinos will NEVER vote for Republicans because they want free "stuff" from the government and the democrats will always offer them more free stuff because they do not have to worry about upsetting their base, which also wants free stuff.
3. Democrats will NEVER join with republicans in taking some heat for the good of the nation or the cause of freedom if they can find political advantage in opposing them. Democrats have no real goal but political power and no purpose to exercise it other than to perpetuate it.

[WatchingInAmazement]

Maybe THEY have something to do with their own downfall...right?

Absolutely.

[rhombus]

Well in the words of Ronald Reagan..."there you go again". Lots of NEVERs in those statements. I think Ronald would have had a more positive and hopeful message.

[Vn_survivor_67-68]

I didn't write this, but I sure subscribe to it......I first learned from Mark Scott the term "cosmetic conservative" 15 yrs ago when he was on WXYT radio, and went searching for uses of the phrase when I read this thread.

"Our Republical leadership are becoming too closely tied with Corporate America and the rich and powerful. If historic additions to the national debt by the party in power are an indication of a party’s conservatism, then both parties are liberal and the Republicans are by far the most liberal.

Many voters today are cosmetic conservatives (CosCons) because they have forgotten or are unaware of key points of history. They are asking the wrong questions and coming up with the wrong answers. Politics is the main stream of history. It follows that political judgments demand historical knowledge. The conservative leaders of this nation have fabricated their political position from two big lies.

In ‘Mein Kampf,” Adolph Hitler said that plausible untruths were one of the best tools for obtaining political power. Enough repetition of a slogan would instill it as truth in common man to the point that, when confronted with incontrovertible disproof, the disproof would be doubted. Thus we have inalienable political fabrications.

The first of the two lies is that our conservative leadership wants a smaller, more efficient government. A politician’s fiscal conservatism is unsustainable over time and becomes liberal because of career motivated public spending. Campaign contribution quid pro quo inevitably produces legislation specifically benefiting the rich and powerful to the detriment of the public interest.

The second lie is that the great burden of taxation on our middle class is the responsibility of the liberal governments of the past. The recent increases in this burden can be laid directly to the enactment of Reagan’s “supply-side” tax reforms. Those reforms shifted the tax burden down the social scale while adding income share to the top 20% of American households concurrently lowering the share of the lower 80%. This is a dangerous concentration of wealth. Many conservatives will continue to doubt that these are lies, in spite of the arguments above. They are inalienable political fabrications"

http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:6S2h2tU1h38J:www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/006529.php+%22cosmetic+conservatives%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=7&client=firefox-a

[Suzy Quzy]

The White House support of Arlen Specter and Chaffee and refusing to support Kathraine Harris was WORSE than NCLB OR the Drug plan!! Just showed raw politics with NO integrity!! Good riddance to Karl Rove and Ken Mehlman and George Bush.

[Rakkasan1]

all we can offer is freedom. getting in a spending contest with democrats is like getting in a drinking contest with Ted Kennedy-you'll lose every time.

[MassExodus]

This country could use a little less compassion and a whole lot more conservatism from this administration.

I remember Bush Sr being asked why it was he thought he lost his bid for a second term., his answer struck me as a little wierd.

Well I 'spose I could have used another quart or two of Ronald Reagan ....Paraphrased.

Where that's true of his Dad, it goes double for dubya.

While going in too soft in the "War on Terror", his credibility is completetly shot by the flood of crimaliens flooding our border.

Hows that Latino vote workin' for the Stupid Party ?