Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Neo-Conservatives are not Conservatives
Sierra Times ^ | August 12, 2002 | Jeff Adams

Posted on 08/12/2002 5:48:59 AM PDT by sauropod

Neo-Conservatives are not Conservatives

By Jeff Adams
Published 08. 8. 02 at 21:29 Sierra Time

Several years ago, I noticed the term "neo-conservative" come into frequent use. I have grown to hate this word because it gives people who bear the term false credentials as true conservatives.

To me, true conservatives fit the description of what used to be called the "Old Right." These "new conservatives" present nothing that reflects the ideas of the "Old Right," or traditional conservatism. Neo-conservatives see nothing wrong with big, centralized government, as long as they, the neo-conservatives, are in charge instead of liberal Democrats. That's like saying, "It would be okay if America was ruled by a dictator, as long as I was the dictator, because I would surely be a benevolent dictator." But you can't count on the next guy to be benevolent. It's asinine.

There is a saying: "Conservatives never conserved anything." In most ways the saying is true. Leading neo-conservatives of today have very moderate stances when it comes to traditional values concerning marriage, sexual mores, immigration, taxation, property rights, limited government, and religion. These people claim to be leaders in the conservative faction of politics. Quite frankly, if you were to put their views and ideas on paper and lay them beside the views and ideas of a liberal Democrat, you would have a hard time telling which ideas were the liberal Democrat's and which came from the neo-conservatives.

Neo-conservatives are in reality neo-socialists, for they cloak their big government socialism in the ideas of big business and they believe that big, centralized government is okay as long as "conservatives" run it. They are the front men for large corporations. They tout capitalism, but in reality they are advocates of mercantilism. This is a close cousin to the state-controlled economies of communist countries. Yes, those economies: the ones that all failed miserably.

What we have in neo-conservatives is a bunch of liberals who are "pretenders to the throne" of conservatism. Real conservatism is actually traditionalism. In that sense, I am not a conservative, but a traditionalist. A "Southern Traditionalist" to be exact. I cling to the ideals and values of our colonial forefathers, and the people of the South who dared stand against Lincoln and the forces of centralization and mercantilism. These new false conservatives can mouth their platitudes and claim to be for tradition all they want. But when their kind continues to expand federal power, to limit our freedoms and liberties, and to accept as normal the perversions that go on in our society, they had best keep in mind that traditionalists like myself see through this façade, and we have had enough. Our numbers are growing, and we no longer believe we have to vote for false conservatives as the "lesser of two evils."

The loud booming voices of neo-conservatism are false prophets. It is like the man behind the curtain in the Wizard of Oz. Pull back the curtain of neo-conservatism and you will see not a conservative, but a socialist. Is it any wonder that many of today's noted neo-conservatives are "former" leftists of the 1960's, or had parents who were members of the Communist Party, USA? Don't two of the Republican's big "conservatives," Orin Hatch of Utah and John McCain of Arizona, spend much of their time "in bed" with Ted Kennedy? When Mississippi's "conservative" Trent Lott was majority leader in the U.S. Senate, did he push a conservative agenda? (The answer, of course, is a very loud "NO.") What has the "arch-conservative" John Ashcroft done since becoming Attorney General? With his help, we are headed toward a police state.

Off hand, the only real conservative, or traditionalist, I see on the national scene is Congressman Ron Paul of Texas. People like him deserve our support. The socialists in neo-conservative clothing need to be spurned. I would rather "throw my vote away" on an independent or third-party candidate and sleep well at night because I didn't contribute to the continuing downfall of our lost republic by voting for a neo-conservative/socialist, than choose "the lesser of two evils" and know that I voted into office someone who was going to go for my wallet and stab me in the back as if he were a common street mugger.

Neo-conservatives are really neo-socialists. True conservatives/traditionalists should denounce these frauds. Just as the original definition of the word "liberal" no longer applies in our society, "conservative" doesn't mean what it used to, not when it comes out of the mouths of the political phonies that man the barricades of the Republican Party. I'm not a neo-conservative, or even a conservative. They've ruined that word. I am a Traditionalist. I hope all who love their freedom, fear God, and know what we have lost, will step up and put on the Traditionalist mantle to help separate themselves from the pretenders who think we will vote for them this election year because they believe we have nowhere else to turn.

© 2002 SierraTimes.com (unless otherwise noted)


TOPICS: Activism/Chapters; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Extended News; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: liberals; morbidwasteoftime; neocon; paleocon; realamericans; wasteofbandwidth
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-217 next last
My sentiments exactly.

Rectitudine Sto. Sauropod

1 posted on 08/12/2002 5:49:00 AM PDT by sauropod
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: diotima; usconservative; Noumenon; Jeff Head; Carry_Okie; countrydummy; ATOMIC_PUNK; redrock
A most excellent statement. Couldn't have said it better myself (although i didn't try ;-). 'Pod
2 posted on 08/12/2002 5:50:32 AM PDT by sauropod
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sauropod; stainlessbanner; 4ConservativeJustices; Twodees
Neo-conservatives see nothing wrong with big, centralized government, as long as they, the neo-conservatives, are in charge instead of liberal Democrats

Excellent post and so true!! Bump for some other true conservatives

3 posted on 08/12/2002 5:53:40 AM PDT by billbears
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: sauropod
It's sad but true. The people have but two choices...Liberal and Liberal Lite!

J

4 posted on 08/12/2002 5:55:17 AM PDT by J. L. Chamberlain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: sauropod
Neo-Conservatism believe 'Conservatism' came out of a desire to rid the world of Nazism and, today, they believe the most pressing policy debate centers around troop movements in the Middle East.

Paleo-libertarian bump.

5 posted on 08/12/2002 5:56:50 AM PDT by JohnGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sauropod
Not to be difficult, but I haven't met anyone who describes themselves as a neo-conservative, only people who describe others that way. And in that regard it's kind of like calling someone a racist, everyone accuses everyone else, but no-one owns up to it.

Liberals say that neo-conservatives are bad because they are conservative, and conservatives say their bad because they're "neo".

It makes it kind of hard for me to find someone to agree with, but easy to find someone to blame.

6 posted on 08/12/2002 6:00:30 AM PDT by tcostell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sauropod
Good article. I'm not sure I agree with the term "socialist" being tied to neocons. I believe there is another term for a strong federal government that uses it's powers to benefit corporate interests, and utilizes powerful national police forces.
7 posted on 08/12/2002 6:01:18 AM PDT by steve50
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: billbears; Constitution Day
I think CD said it in another post - the use of the neo prefix is an attempt to imply that overused term "neo-nazis"
8 posted on 08/12/2002 6:04:07 AM PDT by stainlessbanner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: steve50
strong federal government that uses it's powers to benefit corporate interests, and utilizes powerful national police forces.

Clay's American System

9 posted on 08/12/2002 6:05:23 AM PDT by stainlessbanner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: billbears
I cling to the ideals and values of our colonial forefathers, and the people of the South who dared stand against Lincoln and the forces of centralization and mercantilism. These new false conservatives can mouth their platitudes and claim to be for tradition all they want.

Everytime there is a Southern thread, these false propets and neo-conservatives show up like flies to honey. We know who they are.

10 posted on 08/12/2002 6:10:37 AM PDT by CWRWinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: sauropod
Excellent post! Thanks for bringing it to our attention.
11 posted on 08/12/2002 6:11:58 AM PDT by CWRWinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sauropod
Marker for later reading.
12 posted on 08/12/2002 6:19:49 AM PDT by Darth Sidious
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sauropod
Absotively right on, bro!!! I cringe every time I hear some smarmy talking head utter the word "neo-con" and then sit there so sumg and satisfied that they've managed to squeeze in yet another current, cool inside the Beltway buzzword. Conservativism is conservatism...period! If you call yourself a conservative, but then add qualifiers, then you're not a conservative.

Back during the 2000 campaign, I inwardly winced every time I heard Bush described as a "compassionate" conservative (like conservatism itself isn't already compassionate!), but I turned a blind eye to the implications...after all, he was our man, the one who was going to bring conservative ideals back to DC and chase the Klinton-Whore scourge away for good. I turned a similar blind eye to Kack Kemp's "bleeding-heart" conservativism in '96. Never again. Liberals are liberal, moderates are moderate, and conservatives are conservative.

David Horowitz, Bill Kristol, and others who wear the Neo-con moniker on their sleeves need to reconsider. Those of us who have been on the conservative team all our lives look at them with suspicion at best, and scorn, in my case.

Great post, bro.

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

13 posted on 08/12/2002 6:21:26 AM PDT by wku man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sauropod
BTTT
14 posted on 08/12/2002 6:22:39 AM PDT by truenospinzone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sauropod
The first line of paragraph four says exactly what the fringe right thinks! "PINKOS"

The question remains: Who is obligated to build the bridge? Should the center right build the bridge to the fringe right, or vice versa?

15 posted on 08/12/2002 6:26:14 AM PDT by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sauropod
Neo-conservatives see nothing wrong with big, centralized government, as long as they, the neo-conservatives, are in charge instead of liberal Democrats.

Ronald Reagan was a "neo-conservative" -- he started out as a New Deal Democrat and became a Republican when the Harry Hopkins branch of the party essentially went communist.

Reagan recognized that we needed a "big government" to fight world communism. He also recognized that there were some things big government did well -- like fight a highly technological war. And he realized that having government engineering social policy was idiotic.

And Ronald Reagan was a better "conservative" than any paleocon nitwit that ever lived.

16 posted on 08/12/2002 6:27:56 AM PDT by Cincinatus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: steve50
I concur. Substitute the term "socialist" with "fascist", and this piece is right on the money.
17 posted on 08/12/2002 6:35:25 AM PDT by MamaLucci
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: CWRWinger
The neocons are well entrenched in the party. The attempt now seems to be to paint the true conservatives with the "hard or fringe right" handle while seperating themselves from the neocon tag. Seems to be working, you don't hear the neocon label on the idiot box much anymore.
18 posted on 08/12/2002 6:35:43 AM PDT by steve50
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: sauropod
Ronald Reagan would classify as a neo, but he wasn't nearly conservative enough, was he? Its always so nice to get a forearm shiv from the bunch that does its best to turn everyone away from conservatism because it isn't "conservative enough". Keep beating your chest.
19 posted on 08/12/2002 6:40:12 AM PDT by habs4ever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: billbears
Neo-conservatives see nothing wrong with big, centralized government.

Hamiltonian Federalists. Whigs. Socialists.

I would rather "throw my vote away" on an independent or third-party candidate and sleep well at night because I didn't contribute to the continuing downfall of our lost republic by voting for a neo-conservative/socialist, than choose "the lesser of two evils" and know that I voted into office someone who was going to go for my wallet and stab me in the back as if he were a common street mugger.

Bingo!

20 posted on 08/12/2002 6:42:25 AM PDT by 4CJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: sauropod
One entry found for neoconservative.
Main Entry: neo·con·ser·va·tive
Pronunciation: -k&n-'s&r-v&-tiv
Function: noun
Date: 1952
: a former liberal espousing political conservatism
- neo·con·ser·va·tism /-v&-"ti-z&m/ noun
- neoconservative adjective

This is the proper definition of the word.

Since I was once a lefty who "saw the light," if you will, and became conservative, I am by definition a neoconservative. David Horowitz is a neocon. Even Dr. Thomas Sowell is a neocon. He used to be a Marxist just like Horowitz used to be.

A lot of disdain is shown here for the so-called "neocon." Let it continue, please. As for this "neocon" not being really a conservative, let's just say that I don't prove negatives. I can only tell you what I am as opposed to what I am not.

But if this makes you and others feel better about yourselves, let it ride.

21 posted on 08/12/2002 6:43:45 AM PDT by rdb3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ben Ficklin
Good point.The fringe ought to realize they aren't owed diddly, and if the ideas they espouse were so popular then they would have a bigger seat at the table.But, do they want that, or would they rather act defiant from the sidelines, throwing stink bombs and pointing fingers?
22 posted on 08/12/2002 6:44:27 AM PDT by habs4ever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: habs4ever
...would they rather act defiant from the sidelines, throwing stink bombs and pointing fingers?

They'd rather have the whole loaf or none at all - if they can't have it all, they'd rather be schismatics who insure that the libs take the whole wad, rather than settle for partial measures or half-steps.

Stupid sniping from the sidelines about who is and isn't a conservative - how about we argue about this junk after the libs are run off the field?

23 posted on 08/12/2002 6:48:59 AM PDT by general_re
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: sauropod
Neo-conservatives are in reality neo-socialists

If this is true then "Old-conservatives" are old-racists.

Or is that too general of a statement for anyone??

24 posted on 08/12/2002 6:49:21 AM PDT by Johnny Shear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: habs4ever
"throwing stink bombs" is equatable to burning bridges.
25 posted on 08/12/2002 6:50:05 AM PDT by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: sauropod
Big government types aren't conservatives. There's not much difference between them and liberals ---maybe just in some details of what they want the big government to do.
26 posted on 08/12/2002 6:50:13 AM PDT by FITZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sauropod
Neo Smheo.


This is such a stupid pointless debate I don't know where to begin. There are such bigger problems facing us than to worry if conservatives are neo or not neo.

It's not worth the energy or space.
27 posted on 08/12/2002 6:52:04 AM PDT by finnman69
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tcostell; Cincinatus
Liberals say that neo-conservatives are bad because they are conservative, and conservatives say their bad because they're "neo".

It makes it kind of hard for me to find someone to agree with, but easy to find someone to blame.

tcostell

Reagan recognized that we needed a "big government" to fight world communism. He also recognized that there were some things big government did well -- like fight a highly technological war. And he realized that having government engineering social policy was idiotic.

And Ronald Reagan was a better "conservative" than any paleocon nitwit that ever lived.

Cincinatus

Thank you both for summing up the neo/paelo nonsense that is used by some to justify their positions and denigrate everyone else's. Labels mean nothing. I can tell a liberal without a label and I don't buy this 'my way or no way' defeatist attitude some cling to while pinning their pointless little labels on everyone. If you need a name tag to know who you are, you aren't ready for hardball politics.

28 posted on 08/12/2002 6:53:00 AM PDT by Jim Scott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: habs4ever
Ronald Reagan would classify as a neo, but he wasn't nearly conservative enough, was he? Its always so nice to get a forearm shiv from the bunch that does its best to turn everyone away from conservatism because it isn't "conservative enough". Keep beating your chest.

THANK YOU! I forgot to mention Reagan in my previous post.

It's like this. Man is imperfect, and by extension, any philosophy that the imperfect man creates is by definition imperfect.

Therefore, I will subscribe to no man's dogma. But these types who say that they are the true conservatives are just as dogmatic and rigid in their mindset as the dyed-in-the-wool Leftists are in theirs.

I reject such rigidity of thought out of hand.

If I escaped the mental plantation of the RATS, what makes anyone think that I'm going to enslave my mind yet again to another ideology?

I don't think so. I'm a free-thinker who views issues through the lenses of free (fair) trade, deregulation, tremendously less taxation, overwhelmingly strong defense, and liberty. How to attain these are up for debate to me, but apparently not for others. To them, it's their way or the highway.

29 posted on 08/12/2002 6:58:19 AM PDT by rdb3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: sauropod
Real conservatism is actually traditionalism.

Real conservatism is not so simple minded, and never has been. Traditionalism is part of conservatism, and an important part. But that is hardly the whole story.

I much prefer Russel Kirk's Ten Conservative Principles to the shallow description of conservatism above.

One of the problems with conservatism today is that it continually attacks "Neo-conservatism," but fails to define it the same way twice. The term originally referred to a clique of predominantly Jewish Democrats from New York who switched their political affiliation to the Republican Party primarily over the issues of strong national defense and anti-communism. These days the term is tossed around to label anyone judged insufficiently conservative - a variable definition, dependent on the frame of reference of the accuser.

30 posted on 08/12/2002 6:58:43 AM PDT by Snuffington
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: habs4ever
The fringe ought to realize they aren't owed diddly, and if the ideas they espouse were so popular then they would have a bigger seat at the table

Let me say this for those that are apparently hard of hearing, WE'RE NOT THE FRINGE!!!! We are the ones that keep the party going, the ones that still hold to what it is to be a conservative, and not planning on giving any ground. Unfortunately there are many true conservatives that are willing to vote for the lesser of two evils just because they dislike Democrats more than they dislike the Republican being offered to them. Look at the Republicans of today and compare them to the Republicans of 20 or even 40 years ago. Then compare them to the Democrats of a century and a half ago (that's the line today's Republican comes from, not the Socialist Whig Republicans of the latter half of the 19th century). Every year conservatives give more and more ground and it's about time it stops. You can hardly tell the parties apart except for a few fiscal policies

31 posted on 08/12/2002 7:00:13 AM PDT by billbears
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: steve50
The attempt now seems to be to paint the true conservatives with the "hard or fringe right" handle while seperating themselves from the neocon tag.

WRONG! I'm not separating myself from anything like that. But those of you who would love to hurl that term around as an insult, feel free. All I can do is laugh.

32 posted on 08/12/2002 7:01:22 AM PDT by rdb3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Johnny Shear
"Old-conservatives" are old-racists.

Well besides being an inane comment yes it is too general

33 posted on 08/12/2002 7:04:06 AM PDT by billbears
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: sauropod
This article is garbage.

By the author's reasoning, Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton are not true liberals, since they have not instituted a formal socialized medicine system in America.

Just think. Hillary only proposed a highly regulated government health care system. She did not propose the federal government shutting down all private health care providers and making all doctors employees of the state.

So she must really be a ... neo-liberal, which is another name for a conservative. Right?
34 posted on 08/12/2002 7:08:41 AM PDT by 11th Earl of Mar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Johnny Shear
If this is true then "Old-conservatives" are old-racists.

Ouch! But you know, I could make that argument. I won't though, since in 2002 it's nothing more than shibboleth.

35 posted on 08/12/2002 7:12:41 AM PDT by rdb3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus
Ronald Reagan was no different as president than Jimmy Carter. And he was no better than what Walter Mondale would have been. :]
36 posted on 08/12/2002 7:13:17 AM PDT by 11th Earl of Mar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: finnman69
This is such a stupid pointless debate I don't know where to begin. There are such bigger problems facing us than to worry if conservatives are neo or not neo.

It's not worth the energy or space.

I don't think the labels are important, but I think there are some core issues that are, and those issues are going to be divisive along those lines.

Is FDR's "blank check" interpretation of the Commerce Clause wrong? Are we ultimately shooting ourselves in the foot by saying "Well, it isn't really right, but as long as we've got it, let's try and use it to our advantage."?

37 posted on 08/12/2002 7:18:58 AM PDT by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus
Your definition of the terms bolsters your argument--but the definition is faulty.

EVERY paleo-con understands that the Gummint has TWO minimum functions: defend the shores and deliver the mail.

The fact that Reagan understood the first of these makes him a paleo (at least in that regard.)

Let's re-do your logic with that understanding.
38 posted on 08/12/2002 7:22:30 AM PDT by ninenot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: billbears
If you keep the party going, how come there aren't more of you? Where is that State legislature composed of "true" conservatives that will galvanize so many of you to take it national? Your whole post was an endorsement of staying on the fringe, yet you can't see the irony in it.Another classic sign of a fringe dweller;plus the inevitable "not a dime's worth of difference between the Republicans and Democrats" mantra which is trotted out ad nauseum to fortify your delusions.Yeah, that's not fringe thinking, is it?

Oh, and the cherry on top is the long slide that will eventually, sorta, it will, we hope, kinda mean the Republicans go like the Whigs.The fringe have been waiting for this longer than Godot.Keep waiting.
39 posted on 08/12/2002 7:38:36 AM PDT by habs4ever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: rdb3
Maybe the label is there so the paleos can feel better about being so marginal.It's a good crutch.
40 posted on 08/12/2002 7:41:05 AM PDT by habs4ever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: sauropod
They've ruined that word. I am a Traditionalist.

A Traditionalist fraud, perhaps. We don't allow moral-liberals to define conservatism for us.

41 posted on 08/12/2002 7:41:36 AM PDT by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: steve50
you don't hear the neocon label on the idiot box much anymore.

I plan on doing my part in reviving the label and making it stick to these anti-liberty, anti-South bigots.

42 posted on 08/12/2002 7:42:30 AM PDT by CWRWinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: general_re
I think so much is hot air from them.They aren't constructive, postive people, so they TALK a good game.Ever seen a pessimist actually accomplish anything? It's easier to proclaim "failure" before you start than actually be proven to be one ;-)
43 posted on 08/12/2002 7:43:26 AM PDT by habs4ever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad
moral-liberals

What is a moral-libral?

44 posted on 08/12/2002 7:48:44 AM PDT by CWRWinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: billbears
44 posts and the usual neo-cons/leftists have not shown up. Is there a communist cell meeting this morning?
45 posted on 08/12/2002 7:50:35 AM PDT by CWRWinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: habs4ever
The ideological purists always complain that the pragmatic realists are selling out. Live with me in New York for a while - or Ontario, for that matter - and you soon come to appreciate the virtues of "better than nothing".... ;)
46 posted on 08/12/2002 7:52:46 AM PDT by general_re
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: CWRWinger
"Ah, gee. Let people do whatsoever they want to. It's all nobody's business what consenting adults do. It's all relative. We can't be judgmental about anything. Let's all just live and let die. People have no intrinsic and inestimable worth and value. People can all go to hell in a handbasket for all I care. I am most compassionate!"
47 posted on 08/12/2002 7:53:14 AM PDT by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: CWRWinger
LOL, well not the usual however I think it'd be safe to say I've been attacked more than once for 'gasp' wanting to be truly conservative. I think the author of the article has it dead on. Republicans of today have become some sort of big government nice guys. As long as 'our' side is in power, devil be d#mned if you speak out against them. What I find truly ironic is that if a Democrat were doing the exact same things, the outrage from any Republican would be heard for miles.
48 posted on 08/12/2002 7:54:00 AM PDT by billbears
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: habs4ever
If you keep the party going, how come there aren't more of you? Where is that State legislature composed of "true" conservatives that will galvanize so many of you to take it national? Your whole post was an endorsement of staying on the fringe, yet you can't see the irony in it.Another classic sign of a fringe dweller;plus the inevitable "not a dime's worth of difference between the Republicans and Democrats" mantra which is trotted out ad nauseum to fortify your delusions.Yeah, that's not fringe thinking, is it?

Careful, every political movement worth noting throughout history was instigated by an element that can be described as "fringe".

49 posted on 08/12/2002 8:01:54 AM PDT by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: rdb3
I'm a free-thinker who views issues through the lenses of free (fair) trade, deregulation, tremendously less taxation, overwhelmingly strong defense, and liberty. How to attain these are up for debate to me, but apparently not for others. To them, it's their way or the highway.

Very nicely put

50 posted on 08/12/2002 8:02:11 AM PDT by Mo1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-217 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson