Posted on 01/24/2011 12:54:08 PM PST by John R. Guardiano
...Foreign Policy magazine’s John Rogin reports that Grover Norquist wants to “‘start a discussion’ about leaving Afghanistan among the ‘center-right.’” He wants to “educate the conservative masses about the costs of the war in the hopes of shifting conservative opinion” and effecting an American defeat.
Oh sure, Norquist didn’t say he wants America to lose in Afghanistan, but he might as well have: because that’s what an American withdrawal would mean: an American defeat...
The conservative coalition, of course, includes three distinct types of conservatives: defense and national security hawks, social and cultural cons, and economic or free-market conservatives.
Norquist is decidedly in the latter camp and seemingly antagonistic of late to cultural and defense cons.
Thus, in addition to suggesting that it might be OK to lose in Afghanistan, Norquist also has joined the advisory board of the homosexual advocacy organization, GOProud, which seeks special rights and privileges for lesbians and homosexuals.
But not even David Frum, the supposed beta noire of “real conservatives,” wants to jettison two-thirds of the conservative coalition.
Frum instead wants to modulate conservatives’ political approach, not abandon conservatism altogether. Frum, in fact, is a conservative, albeit an iconoclastic and unconventional conservative.
Here’s my proposal to which I welcome Norquists’ response: How about a “conversation” about raising taxes to help reduce the deficit?
Or maybe we can have a “dialogue” about the “public option”? Or better yet, what do you say we “talk about” how to enforce “fair trade” on China, Chile and Mexico?
Now, I’m not saying we should do any of these things, mind you; I’m only saying that we conservatives need to start talking about these things!
Of course, I rather doubt Norquist would welcome a “conversation” about these matters. He’d rightly say these subjects are off limits...
(Excerpt) Read more at johnrguardiano.com ...
“Norquist may not have Rush’s cultural clout, but he has tremendous D.C./Capitol Hill clout and influence.”
As someone with a little bit of a connection to Washington of the “conservative” ilk, I can attest to Norquist’s gigantic footprint among conservative insiders. I am acquainted with him, and am sorry to confirm the power of his influence. He has turned completely wrong on foreign policy (he is simply a jihadi from Harvard at this point) and social concerns. I mean 100% wrong, and I am someone who thought the Afghan incursion was a chuckleheaded move in the absence of a vision and will to win.
America should do only what can be done from offshore, using intelligence, drones, cruise missiles, airstrikes and small, potent Special Forces units, concentrating on the porous 1,500-mile border with Pakistan, a nation that actually matters.
I believe you are correct about Norquist.
Norquist is a pal of CAIR and islamic lover. I do not see any point in being in Afghanistan and probably Iraq when an islamist is in teh white hut.
These two wars are bankrupting America bring american troops back and send muslim home. Norquist is a MEGA POS.
As far as Ron Paul - he is the only one standing up to the fraudulent and unConstitutional private Federal Reserve.
Let’s have conversations about cutting ALL programs that ONLY benefit liberals.
Every US life lost there not in pursuit of OBL
and his minions is a life lost in a lost cause.
The Tea Party is about Limited Constitutional Government. Less Government, More Freedom.
Endless war is in conflict with Less Government. It’s expensive. And, really, traditionally, the Democrats have never been shy about getting us involved in wars.
Tea Party has always had a sizable Libertarian component. And has never has a pro war policy.
You can be tea party and be for more war or less war.
You can be tea party and be for cultural conservative positions, or not (but cultural / social conservativism does fit much better with tea party).
But limited constitutional government is the core of tea party, and there’s a lot of overlap there with libertarian.
The architects of the Bush war policy, the cheerleaders, the neocons, Rove, Kristol, Podhoretz, Krauthammer, etc, are the same people who are currently attacking Conservatives. The neocons are not Conservatives. More war is traditionally the Liberal position, and less war is traditionally the Conservative position.
Socons, cultural conservatives, are conservatives. It’s wrong for conservatives to embrace the gays and that stuff.
There’s a lot of common ground between tea party and socons.
Gay marriage is not in the Constitution. Liberal judges should not put it there. Tea Party and Socons agree on this and many other things. Roe v Wade - not in the Constitution.
The prowar neocons are the ones embracing the gays and bashing the tea party and the socons.
It’s an error for conservatives to be embracing the gays, but not an error to have a clear message - spend less money across the board. Less Government. We’re broke. Not, get rid of all this domestic stuff because we’re broke, but continue to spend on endless wars. People, moderates, people who typically don’t pay close attention, will appreciate our consistent message.
Hey! I don’t know about the Wednesday meeting now, but when we were invited to one of them back in 2002 we were shocked to find out that it was held in a building with lots of Arabic carving on the outside of the building and when we were in the meeting, Grover was flanked on both sides by Muslims. It was quite an eye opener.
I had no idea that he was married to a Muslim. I guess that would explain a lot.
How are guys?
Yes, and I will be suiting up for the Packers in Super Bowl 45.
Oops. How are you guys?
Old fashioned diner swivel seats (or stools) used to have a solid pole in the middle attached to the floor. On top was a round cushiony seat. It was very comfortable, and very solid.
When you saw that stool, you knew exactly what that stool was all about. That stool was permanent and solid. After a while, you had to tighten the bolts there in the floor/ceiling.
The solid pole is Limited Constitutional Government. Gay Marriage and Endless Wars are completely in conflict with Limited Constitutional Government.
Having some weird extra attachment to the seat serves no useful purpose.
I totally agree.
It is timeless.
The NH “straw poll” was a poll of party leaders in NH. Ron Paul’s people have been taking over positions large and small in NH. So, it’s not the same ol 2008 spamming. Will be interesting to see how Ron Paul does at CPAC. You don’t have to be a party insider to do well there.
John R. Guardiano: (Excerpt) Read more at johnrguardiano.com ...
humblegunner: Why not just post it here?
Me: Excellent question!
Is Grover Norquist an Islamist?
What say you now, Grover Norquist?
Grover Norquist is actually notorious as an Islamist apologist and that is among the right-wing press.
Gee Grover, it was nice while it lasted. I have no use for queers, fagots and lesbians. You're done in my book. Does that fork sticking out of your chest hurt?
It’s not the libertarians. Google Norquist’s ties to Islamic terrorism. And while you are at it, look up that “Palestinian” whore of a wife of his.
With whom?
Thanks John R. Guardiano.
Grover Norquist: Ground Zero Mosque The ‘Monica Lewinsky Ploy’ For GOP (VIDEO)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/19/grover-norquist-calls-gro_n_687534.html
Conservative voice Grover Norquist says that heated debate pervading the country over plans to build a mosque and Islamic community center a few blocks away from “Ground Zero” in New York City may inadvertently backfire on Republicans. Norquist, whose wife is Muslim, weighed in on the matter in an interview with Michael Scherer at Time magazine earlier this week.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover_Norquist
Children — Grace Salam, Giselle Salma
GN’s also praised by Newt Gingrich.
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.