Posted on 02/12/2007 11:39:59 AM PST by Keyes2000mt
LOLOL
The streets of NYC used to be a war zone, doesn't that count?
Sorry, Reagan wasn't all that conservative and had the fortune to run against Jimmy Carter in a horrible economy.
It was George Bush's main sound bite in 2000/4, you remember..
I agree Bush has pretty much fractured the republican party..
Only a matter of time before he supports Giuliani.. unless he supports the one he DON'T want to succeed..
Hey Adam.....
at least you can spell.
That's about all I can say positive about your simplistic point of view.
> The New Deal.
> The Vietnam-era sprit of protest.
> The dysfunctional public school system.
> Laws favoring labor unions at the expense of individual entrepreneurs.
> The US tax code.
> The free flow of money into the US Treasury and back out to particular groups whose votes need to stay bought.
> Congressional earmarks on legislation.
> Their own tenure in office.
But finding someone interested in conserving the radical spirit of liberty exemplified by the Founding Fathers, well, that's a tricky one. And it's hard to "conserve" something that hasn't really been a part of American life for a century and half.
So I'd say we need a lot fewer "conservatives" and a lot more radicals. ;)
I don't see my brand of conservative in that description above.
Where are the pro-freedom conservatives, those who believe in freedom because it's the right thing to do as opposed to those who like freedom because it works most of the time?
These conservatives hate big government because it restricts our freedom, not because it "doesn't work."
These conservatives want lower taxes because it cuts down the size of government (or, at least it should).
These conservatives believe that the Bill of Rights is immutable, and don;t think it should be suspended because of a conflict either here or abroad.
These conservatives are heirs to the Barry Goldwater school of conservatism, not Richard Nixon's. In economics they favor Friedman and Hayak and Mises over Galbreath and Keynes.
These conservatives would never go along with efforts to increase entitlements, grow the Department of Education, or raise tariffs.
Wish these conservatives had a place in our GOP.
I'm enthralled with these people who are obsessed with "defining" others to pump themselves up as the "real, true" conservatives.
Reminds me of a girl who lived in our town who was very rich and kind of looked down her nose at the rest of us because we were just "normal" people; she had a friend in town and brought her to a big party; someone overheard her telling her friend that "most of these people are from the wrong side of the tracks."
We finally figured it out: she built the tracks around HER house; not hard to find people to look down on then, is it?
Somebody needs to remind me again just who it is who is trying to "divide" this party.
Excellent points and something I've wondered. When a major paper like the LA Times is up for sale, why wasn't there any serious conservatives bidding on it?
The same people who espouse Reaganism have forgotten he wasn't a conservative governor in California, he had to govern according to the state, which was already leaning liberal. Once he was President he governed according to the country as a whole and was more conservative.
That's a very good way of explaining things. It's an interesting dilemma that both Rudy and Mitt faced. The question is do we demand purity in those blue state and just give up or do we accept a bit of the RINO to try to break down blue state stereotypes about Republicans? I hate the thought of giving up. I confess that I celebrated when Rudy won NY and also rejoiced when Mitt won Massachusetts.
This is the shallowest analysis of the conservative movement I've seen this side of DU.
Because newspapers don't make money any more. However, it would be nice if a wealthy conservative could subsidize the darn thing so we could try and effect the dinosaurs who still believe it's true if it's on newsprint.
Same as with the other end of the spectrum.
Every 8-12 years, social conservatives throw a tantrum and DEMAND that a candidate take a "strong" position and say out loud the magic words: "I think abortion should be illegal everywhere."
No matter that no pro-life candidate has done a damn thing to overturn Roe/Wade....it doesn't matter. They just want someone to say the magic words, and then they will vote against Hillary.
I'm not sure what this analysis was intended to do here. First I thought it was just another disunity stink bomb to get us all a-sqwabblin'. Any writing that tries to label groups can always smell bad. Then as I watched the discussion board here I agreed that the "conservative movement" as you called it, is moved forward by different groups with not exactly the same ordered priorities. When we reject this, we lose. When we accept this, we win and winning by losing is what the party of the "communal movement" wants us to do.
What I don't get is their "trick God" plan.
They're concerned that the country's morality is withering on the vine in God's eyes, and if they can only elect a pro-life prez, and pass a Federal or Constitutional Law.....then...well, God will think our morality is restored.
Never mind that the deteriorating individual morality of the people isn't changed one bit....nope, they need to wait till 2008 to improve morality by force of government.
Well I don't know too much about everyone's individual morality. But I sure as heck wouldn't want to know about every screaming monkey on every hairy back. Thank you very much but it just isn't my job. :-)
For one, Renew America is less of a blog that Free Republic. Second, the article has nothing to do with Alan Keyes who is almost certainly not running in 2008.
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.