Skip to comments.The Return of National Greatness Conservatism
Posted on 03/05/2008 9:45:34 AM PST by Shortwave
McCain shares with the devotees of national greatness a deep distrust of freedom. In a speech in 2002, he said: "Our freedom and our industry must aspire to more than acquisition and luxury. We must live out the true meaning of freedom, and accept 'that we have duties to others and duties to ourselves; and we can shirk neither.'"
(Excerpt) Read more at techcentralstation.com ...
To me, during the passing of the guard - those eight drunken years of political philandering by Cliton - the Republican party split into two parts - the "Sons of Reagan" who went in search of greatness of their own, concocting a "to do" list of things to accomplish, and the true Reagan conservatives that are more concerned with protecting the accomplishments of Reagans extensive "have done" list.
Unfortunately, this occured without conservatives realizing it. When the torch was passed to President Bush, the expectation of the conservative movement was, "Finally, our guy!" And we all believed the Reagan movement was alive and well, that just wasn't the case.
One thing I'm certain of, had Reagan too concluded that Iraq posed an imminent threat to our country; there would have been little time to talk about quagmires, inadequate body armor, and war for oil. He would have completed the job by now despite the amplified humming of the left.
I'm also quite certain, Iranian terrorists, Pol Pot dictators, and two-bit thugs wouldn't be using the country in which we've spilt so much blood, as a political bully pulpits to further their blood shedding and murderous policies of hatred.
I have a tremendous amount of respect for President Bush, and I think there is much more positive to say about his presidency than negative; however, for the very same reasons I cannot support John McCain, I do make some criticism of his presidency - He's a good Republican, but a questionable conservative.
Well I read the excerpt and it didn’t need any contemplation. McCrazy is a liberal hack.
You should take the time to read it though. I think it is insightful as to why McCain is in the position he’s in, and why conservatives are being ignored.
That's putting it mildly.
Could it be that McCain suffers of the Stockholm syndrome after the many years he spent in a communist prison camp i.e. he has developed an empathy for socialism/communism?
There is a difference between a leader and a director. To the director we say, leave us alone
No, McVain has spent too many years in the Senate reaching across the aisle to the people who hate conservatives that "he has developed an empathy for socialism/communism".
He sure has empathy for his good friends across the aisle. And that’s one of many reasons why he is not a serious factor in the November election.
The policy of a good conservative administration has to be a blend. It ought to support free markets and limited government but it should also recognize that there are areas where government has to act. It ought to act energetically to defend our interests abroad, but not blunder into ill-conceieved foreign involvements or adventures.
I think that's the reason for ambivalence about McCain (and Bush). One can see that in some way they get it. They do have a mix. They're neither anarchists nor socialists. They're not head-in-the-sand isolationists, either. But their blend's not necessarily the right one. McCain may go to far in the direction of "national greatness" and away from freedom and responsible government. Hence the ambivalence.
Good post. And you’re exactly right.
Bush’s foreign policy makes no sense to me: his actual indifference about “Weapons of Mass Destruction”, allowing Sharia to be enshrined in the Iraqi constitution, and his deference to Saudi Arabia.