Posted on 01/15/2010 9:51:31 AM PST by rabscuttle385
Frum sees him as an antidote to the Tea Party madness:
Strong on defense and school choice, opposed to the Obama administration’s signature initiatives, Brown voted in favor of Mitt Romney’s health plan in Massachusetts. He describes himself as pro-choice (subject to reasonable limitations), accepts gay marriage in Massachusetts as a settled fact, and told the Boston Herald editorial board he would have voted to confirm Sonia Sotomayor.
(Excerpt) Read more at andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com ...
As social conservatives lost the grip on America during the 20th century, especially since the 1950s, government has become massive, the left has succeeded in blocking conservatism in modern America. The more gains that the anti Christian left make, the more powerful the government becomes. Your side has been making huge headway for several generations, the Americans of old would not recognize this barbaric culture.
What do you do for a living that allows you to spend all day, every day spending 100% of your time here on Free Republic posting “Hate the GOP” Democrat Party propaganda posts?
First, considering that this is the first time on this thread you are asking me such a question, it would be rather hard for me to "posture and bleat" in an attempt to avoid providing an answer, now wouldn't it?
Second, I'm not paid by anyone, I'm not operating on behalf of anyone but myself, and I'm not a registered Democrat. I'm a former Republican who finally woke up from the Kool-Aid to reality; at present, I'm not registered or affiliated with any party.
It’s amazing this subject gets so much discussion when the logical course is so simple:
1. Support the most conservative candidate available in every state and every congressional district.
2. Support a conservative and do everything possible to keep RINOs off the Republican presidential ticket.
True. He's a very good candidate with a very good campaign and she's the opposite.
Reality Versus Delusion. Pragmatism Versus Purism. Delusion of purism is the sure road for defeat, after defeat, after defeat not just in politics but in everything else in life.
So in your bizarre little pseudo Conservative world, it is better to elect an out and out flaming Leftist who will renew the Democrats 60 vote lock on the US Senate rather then elect anyone not 100% dogmatically pure by your measure?
Cause that your choice at this very late date. Either vote for the rabid Leftist and Obama or vote against them. There are no other choices at this point. So by your actions you demonstrate you are firmly on the side of Obama and his agenda.
So spare us the faux Conservative bluster and posturing 0-bot. This thread is going to be thrown in your face over and over and over and over if Coakley wins Tuesday to remind everyone just who you really work for.
You mean like how anti-McCain threads were thrown in my face over and over again after McKook lost?
/sarc
I guess there is one other explanation.
You are juvenile attention whore who posts this ignorant crap because it the only way to get anyone to pay attention to you.
So which is it Rab?
Faux Conservative working for the Democrat Party?
Just ignorant of basic facts?
or
Attention whore?
Quit ducking the question Rab.
Why is it you never, ever find anything to attack the Left on ever? Look at your posting history.
100% of the time, flaming out at someone on the Right for not being pure enough to suit your personal tastes. Never ever attack anyone on the Left.
Why is that?
So tell us, exactly which "Big Government" programs do you think SoCons support, and provide the evidence for those of us here on FR who are SoCons that we, in fact, support these.
Are you saying that more laws are the answer to all of our social ills? Because that's exactly what most "conservative" government programs are--more Government!
Quite the opposite, in fact. It ought to be pretty apparent to anybody who's paid the least bit of attention to American history over the last century that the times when this country has leaned in a socially libertarian direction are subsequently followed by times when government expands enormously, often in response to the conditions created by the social libertarian atmosphere previously had.
In the 1920s, we saw a period of social liberalisation, what with the Flappers and opium bars and all, which generated the "need" for all kinds of big government nonsense like the start of the "War on Drugs" and so forth. Because people couldn't exercise self-control, the government stepped in and did it for them. The same thing in the late 1960s/early 1970s - social liberalism (which is essentially the heart of libertarian approaches to social issues) generally wrecked the mores of society, creating all kinds of problems - because people once again couldn't exercise self-control - that lead to the "need" for massive government intervention.
Social conservatism is more than just a laundry list of set-piece issues. If that's how you approach it, then it's no wonder you come off sounding like you haven't got a clue. Social conservatism is really just that - conservatism in the social realm. Conservatism, i.e. seeking to keep what works traditionally, with respect to matters of social changes and their impact on society.
In our society, being that it is a subset of the traditional Judeo-Christian Western civilisation, "conservatism" means maintaining the traditional moral system that generally helps to serve to keep people from harming others (i.e. "do unto others as you would have them do unto you") and which has been the primary motivator in encouraging all sorts of good things like thrift and hard work, respect for innocent life, respect for private property, and the rule of law.
It really isn't surprising to me that at those times when our society has swung towards the socially libertarian side of the pendulum, we have concurrently seen increases in crime, laziness and a desire for welfare, lawlessness, and increasingly capricious understanding of the value of human life, and governmental infringements on property rights. Libertarianism sets the "spirit of the times," and creates the conditions that end up being the seeds of its own destruction.
The converse point is that without the social libertarianism, there would not have been the conditions put into place that would cause people to "need" the big government interventions, etc. There wouldn't be the "need" for more and more prisons, for welfare, for drug laws, etc. etc. Libertarianism, because it wants the freedom and liberty, but eschews the necessary requirement of self-control, generates the very things it rails against.
Oh, and by the way, use of the Federal government for purposes of social engineering is generally a "progressive" or an authoritarian goal, not a conservative one.
So tell us - do you consider laws against abortion that protect innocent life to be "social engineering"? How about opposition to the radical social changes involved with gay "marriage"? Do you consider those to be social engineering?
Very well stated.
Because Kennedy is at 3%
in NY-23 the race was much closer and in a place the conservatives some times wins. Brown is a tea bagging conservative in Boston!
He’s as conservative as they’ll get in the next 20 years...
I wouldn’t vote for him, but I wouldn’t live there either. that said, I’ll speed $20 to try and take a vote out of obamacare...
Who gives a crap?
99% of Freepers want Scott Brown in as US Senator and Martha Coakley kept out
As US Senator Scott Brown can be the vote that carries a Republican filibuster
Plus Scott is a good and humble guy
If he's a RINO I can deal with that
I’m as anti-RINO as one can be. However, Brown is the *ONLY* thing standing between us and the Obamacare monstrosity.
With stakes that high, all I can say is, Go Scott Brown!!!
The federal War on Drugs, for starters.
There's also No Child Left Behind, but I won't get into that one now.
As for your evidence, holler something about ending the Federal prohibition on marijuana in any of the forums and see how many angry socons respond.
when this country has leaned in a socially libertarian direction
You confuse "libertine" with "libertarian."
They are not one and the same.
While there are some libertarians who do endorse a libertine lifestyle, there are plenty of others who do not.
In the 1920s, we saw a period of social liberalisation, what with the Flappers and opium bars and all, which generated the "need" for all kinds of big government nonsense like the start of the "War on Drugs" and so forth.
The "War on Drugs" was initiated by progressives who believed it acceptable to use the Federal government to reshape American society according to their vision for it.
Because people couldn't exercise self-control, the government stepped in and did it for them.
What you're saying is that people are incapable of making their own decisions and that, consequently, Government must step in and dictate to them how to live their lives, presumably, according to you, in a manner consistent with a Judeo-Christian worldview.
Of course, that's basically out-and-out social planning, which is the same as economic planning, and a variant of authoritarianism.
Conservatism, i.e. seeking to keep what works traditionally, with respect to matters of social changes and their impact on society.
I have no problem with conserving the values that have defined American society and contributed to its success; however, I have problems with the use of "Big Government" to "conserve" those values, particularly since individual freedom and liberty are themselves fundamental American values. The biggest problem is that the use of "Big Government" effectively constitutes, for lack of better terminology, an act of selling one's soul to the devil (i.e., a Faustian bargain). Sure, you may get what you want in the short run, but in the long run, you have just handed control over your life (as well as the lives of others) to the Government. This is a bad idea since it goes against the notion of individual freedom and liberty AND because it's impossible to guarantee that at all times a faction holding views amenable to yours will be in power and thus defining what the Government considers an acceptable and lawful way to live.
Libertarianism, because it wants the freedom and liberty, but eschews the necessary requirement of self-control, generates the very things it rails against.
Again, confusion over the distinction between libertinism and libertarianism.
So tell us - do you consider laws against abortion that protect innocent life to be "social engineering"? How about opposition to the radical social changes involved with gay "marriage"? Do you consider those to be social engineering?
If done at the Federal level, yes.
First, abortion is a State issue. One, if it is generally a form of murder (or homicide), as proponents of a prohibition on abortion claim, then it ought to be handled by the various States as murder (or homicide) as those crimes are handled today. Two, I would be willing to wager that a significant number of States would prohibit abortion to various degrees today if Roe v. Wade were repealed.
Second, I don't believe Government should be involved in marriage, period. Letting Government define what constitutes marriage is dangerous because it opens the door to all manner of unwholesome concoctions that are incompatible with American society. IMO, marriage is a social institution within the realm of the Church (or other religious organization) and ought to remain exclusively under its governance.
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.