RE: Conservatives vs Moderates [now closed]
By Martin A. Knight Posted in Archived | GOP | moderates — Comments (252) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
So, you've all had your fun. You've gotten to vent about moderates. I hope you feel better. Now we have to work together to, you know, try to build a coalition to win. Unless you are happy being in the minority. If so, go on about your business. But as for me and RedState, we aim to win. And that takes more than a merry few. So be happy soldiers in the fight, but just remember the fight is with the left.
Comments are now closed. --- Erick
This is sort of a belated response to BigGator5's diary protesting the "anti-moderate" sentiment simmering just below the surface of most RedState regulars - I'm one of them.
To be honest, I've not exactly made it a secret that I am not exactly enamored of the "moderate" wing of the Republican Party - I should think the quotation marks are a big giveaway - so I'm probably part of the problem from BigGator5's perspective. So let me put it out there once and for all, and let's hash it out here now before the Democrats have a nominee so we can concentrate all our fire on them when they do.
Anyway, KLo posted this rather hagiographical recounting of Bobby Jindal's recent appearance before the National Press Club yesterday morning. Like most RedStaters, I'm a major Jindal fan so of course I read it, and for some reason, this sentence in the last paragraph struck home with me;
Talk to conservatives — Washington insiders and National Review Online readers alike — and you'll almost universally hear an enthusiasm for Jindal: a conservative Republican who knows what he's about and is confident it's a winning philosophy.
This is, I think, a major part of what lies at the root of the rift between the moderate and conservative wings of the GOP - "moderate" Republicans routinely exhibit behaviors that indicate a pronounced lack of confidence in the core animating principles of the Republican Party.
I cannot remember any major legislative battle since I first jumped into the pool of political-junkiehood in which Republicans were not understandably nervous about how many (it's never a question of if) of our "weak sisters" would defect and vote against what is clearly good policy because of Bipartisanship™ or some other reason that just coincidentally makes them look good in newspaper articles.
Quite frankly, on my part, my beef is that Republican "moderates" have repeatedly shown that they cannot be counted on ... on anything when the going gets tough - even on the fiscal issues where they're supposed to be strong, they're quite frankly just as likely to fold as they are on every other issue.
Believe it or not, the fact that Republican "moderates" are generally socially liberal does not bother me that much. Social mores vary from place to place and let's be honest; a Jeff Sessions (a Bobby Jindal may be a different story) would find it rather difficult to win races in New Jersey as opposed to South Carolina. What really bothers me about Republican "moderates" is they are always the first to collapse, the first to throw away any high ground we have in a bid to compromise with people who would not even consider returning the favor if the roles were reversed.
And with the new "moderate" poster-children of Jim Jeffords and Lincoln Chafee, even the all important vote for the Majority Leader (the only reason why anyone would lift a finger to help a squish2 Chafee) may soon become a question-mark. I continue to say that the probability is greater than 50% that the poltroon from Rhode Island would have either voted "present" during the Leadership vote, for Howard Baker (since he voted for George H. W. Bush in 2004), or (most likely) for Harry Reid had it been he had won in 2006.
So BigGator5's rather generous description of "moderates" as tending, "to be, to varying degrees, fiscally conservative and socially liberal ...", is really only half-right - about the "socially liberal" part. By and large, Republican "moderates'" collective record on fiscal conservatism is about as mediocre as can be - the roaring fiscally conservative socially liberal Republican in reality is actually a rare creature - Rudy Giuliani, Bill Weld and Gary Johnson (of New Mexico) come to mind but not much of anyone else.
The fact is that almost all of the so-called "moderates" that count themselves as members of the Republican Main Street Partnership have far less or, at best, no more pristine a record on fiscal conservatism than their full-spectrum conservative brethren in the party.
It may not be fair, (and this doesn't mean I want "moderates" out of the Tent) but the first thing that popped into my mind when I read BigGator5's statement that moderate Republicans "... share core Republican ideals and that is why [they] we are Republicans, not Democrats ..." was "Yeah? Which ones?"
BigGator5 describes himself as "having a conservative view on Law & Government (less taxes and less government), a libertarian view on Economics (government should keep their bloody hands off businesses and economics altogether), and a moderate view of Social Issues." As far as I'm concerned, that's excellent - he sounds like Rudy Giuliani or Gary Johnson. If only our elected "moderates" were close to this in actual practice, rather than being capitulating weathervanes, there would be a lot less of a split between the wings.
What we get instead is something like this;
- A & B are having an argument.
A says 2 + 2 = 4.
B says 2 + 2 = 5.
Mr. Conservative walks by and they ask him to settle it. Mr. Conservative flatly says A is correct, B is incorrect, and he walks on.
Ms. Liberal walks by and they ask her to settle it. Ms. Liberal quickly calculates the VQ (Victim Quotient) of both and declares correct the party with the higher score, calls the other party a racist and walks on.
Mr. Moderate walks by and A & B ask him to settle it. Mr. Moderate (as expected) suggests a compromise; 2 + 2 is 4 on Mondays, Tuesdays, half of Thurday and all of Friday and 5 at all other times ...
If anything, the only thing I've seen "moderate" Republicans place a premium on as a matter of principle is Bipartisanship™. It's as predictable as the sun rising in the East - stick the word "Bipartisan" in front of the name of any bill and "moderates" virtually stampede to be counted amongst its supporters. This usually ends up as a net negative to Conservatives given that MSM math has it that 45 Republicans and 6 Democrats passing a bill is a vote "along partisan lines," but 49 Democrats and two Republicans comprises a "Grand Bipartisan™ Coalition."
Don't get me wrong; Bipartisanship™ is all very nice and sweet, but it really is not suited to be a governing principle. Though it may come as a shock to a lot of people (mike_volpe - grab the smelling salts), the word "Bipartisan™" is not synonymous with "good" - a bad bill that passes with a bipartisan majority is still a bad bill while a good bill that passes a 100% along partisan lines is still a good bill. The negative consequences of the former would not be any less because it was passed by a "Grand Bipartisan™ Coalition."
To be frank, I have very little patience with all the wailing and moaning in the partisan (Democratic) media about the atmosphere in Washington DC turning off voters because of the partisan rancor and hardball ideological politics (of Republicans, of course). I don't really believe the story that what Americans want most from their politicians are images of Republicans and Democrats sitting around the camp fire singing Kumbayah ...
And that's not just because I'm more inclined towards a hardball, confrontational, take no prisoners approach style to politics - i.e. "... first you win the argument, then you win the vote." It's because the entirety of the period from 2001 till today is proof that it simply isn't true. Quite frankly, Americans really don't spend any time bemoaning the atmosphere in Washington or weeping desperately for Bipartisanship™ in Capitol Hill.
Kate O'Beirne notes in this article on NRD, just about a month after the disaster of 2006;
Although Washington lore faults congressional Republicans for ushering in an era of poisonous partisanship, Pelosi's plan to recapture the House meant a ban on any bipartisanship. She enforced a party loyalty that had House Democrats deliver "the most unified voting record in 50 years," according to the Washington Post. In 2005, her caucus voted along strict party lines 88 percent of the time. In 1997, 51 House Democrats supported a Republican budget that significantly reduced domestic spending. Last year, there wasn't a single Democratic vote for a five-year GOP budget plan with far more modest reductions.
Far from being punished by the voters for not putting Bipartisanship™ first, Pelosi got rewarded with the Speaker's chair.
Another example is Bush.
If indeed, being unfailingly solicitous toward your opponents, dodging fights, using the mildest possible criticisms of your opponents even when campaigning against them, refusing to defend yourself against plain falsehoods and smears to your name and members of your administration ... and even joining the other side in attacking your party (Bush at the Democratic House members' retreat) is really something that appeals to voters, Bush and his "New Tone" should be flying high in the polls. But he's not.
The real issue here is the rift between conservatives and "moderates" and why this rift exists. My position is that "moderates" have repeatedly shown they cannot be trusted to stand strong when strength is needed on any issue - it's as if there exists within our "moderate" contingent a congenital inability to tell when compromise crosses the threshold into abject capitulation. This doesn't happen with Democrats - their "moderates" may talk with a drawl, say a few nice things about tax cuts and the Second Amendment, but ultimately when it's time to vote, they stand with their folks on their side of the aisle.
Our "moderates" have us nervously chewing our nails down to the bone on every tough vote, wondering whether their strange fixation on "Bipartisanship™" would raise its ugly head before it's their turn to yell 'aye' or 'nay.'
As Kate O'Beirne pointed out in the same article, when Democrats demand "Bipartisanship" on the part of Republicans, they mean " ... the 'bipartisanship' of the 'good' old days, when nice Bob Michel — the longtime GOP House minority leader — led an impotent caucus that got along by going along ..."
This is the Bipartisanship™ of moderate Republican "heroes" like Jacob Javits, Clifford Case, Hamilton Fish, etc - the type of pale pastel Republicanism that left the GOP in the wilderness for forty years until Reagan and Gingrich came along. We don't want to go back to offering echoes, not choices.
Endpoint; conservatives in the GOP have their own issues to contend with. But if the average "moderate" Republican in the House, in the Senate, or in the Governor's offices, were more like Rudy Giuliani, rather than Lincoln Chafee, I really don't think they'd be much of a problem.
All that said, and off my chest - let's get to electing John McCain.
The purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better.
Dr. Theodore Dalrymple
I think there is a huge difference in moderate politicians and the moderate rank and file Republicans. I think there are many more Guiliani type moderates in the rank and file than in the hallowed halls of Congress. I consider myself to be Guiliani style-although I consider myself a conservative who's socially liberal, mostly because I consider myself aggressive on the other two legs of the stool and a Federalist on the social scale, despite my personal beliefs, ie I support gay marriage but wouldn't force it on the states or prevent it via FMA, and personally pro-life, and I'd overturn Roe and then let the states decide but I wouldn't support the HLA either. I think that part of the problem with moderates, and why I consider myself a conservative, and I consider Rudy conservative as well, is that conservatives tend to emphasize where they agree with their party, not with the opposition. Rudy may be more liberal than McCain, but he never walked around emphasizing where he was off of the reservation-like Romney, he worked tirelessly to show off common ground with conservatives, whereas McCain likes to show off his common ground with the New York Times and ABC. I think this is what moderates do-they show their differences with the party so they can be good little mavericks, whereas conservatives tend to emphasize their conservative credentials and enjoy smacking round the oppostion more than their own party.
Someone's got to punch the hippies.
I think there are a lot more rank and file Rudyites than anyone thinks. (Some might ask why he didn't win the primary then -- but I think it was a combination of the crowded field and, more importantly, a stupid campaign strategy of lie low and then pounce when it is way too late.)
And don't the polls support that now -- I don't know anything about the slant or bias of various polling orgs, but aren't they all pretty much saying that the trends are that the public are now identifying more with the Dem side of a lot of issues?
I think the conservative ranks are key to winning elections because they are the most active in terms of not just helping and promoting candidates, but funding, etc.
But I thought guys like Rudy were all a part of the whole big tent concept. He never pandered or apologized. He stuck to his principles. That in itself is something people will support -- someone who sticks to their principles even if they are different from your own.
Think about Bush in 2002 -- he stood by his principles. He was strong and resolute. (Personally I think he blew off all his principles after that -- at least fiscal principles.)
Bottom line: I don't think the party can win without both the moderates and the conservatives. Wasn't that the basis of Reagan's magic formula.
It's not true that anyone who disagrees with the mainstream conservative position is a moderate. There are ways for honest, passionate, committed hardcore Republicans to disagree on major issues of substance.
Trying to label any one but the conservative faction of the party 'moderate' is self-defeating and marginalizing.
That we're now calling people like McCain moderates, just shows how the word is losing any sense among TrueConservatives™.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
More Giulianis, fewer Chafees, please.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
The term "conservative" is a little easier to define than "moderate", and I don't know, we tend to use "moderate" as a dig - and rightfully so, since true Burke-Hamilton-Goldwater-Kirk conservatism is (IMHO) very close to ideal as a governing philosophy.
But anyway, I think the thing here from Martin is that the ones in Washington we tend to label "moderate" are in fact politically amoral, having no true loyalty to any part of conservatism. Therefore in practice we seem them bolt any time the going is the least bit tough.
Being a legitimate semi-conservative I think is a tenable position. Giuliani and McCain fit that, IMO. But when you step on people like Linc Chafee, they make the same sound as when you step on a squid : "squish".
Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J
McCain not only breaks with the party, he runs to the media to report on every time he is breaking with the party leadership. I also think that while he may care about conservative issues, they are not his bread and butter and focus, which detracts from his credentials on conservatism. He might have conservative leanings, but he's definitely no conservative. BTW-Go Lakers! :-)
Someone's got to punch the hippies.
The last conservative we nominated was Reagan. Before that, Goldwater. Before that, Coolidge. Conservatives rarely win our national party fights.
But that doesn't mean every other nominee was a 'moderate,' 'squish,' or 'liberal.' (I put liberal in quotes because it's so often used in the FDR-redefined sense of moderate socialist, rather than in the honorable sense that it used to be used here, and is still used in Europe)
Nor does it mean that for McCain to have won the nomination, that he had to have gotten support from any of the above, or that his supporters were somehow lesser Republicans. You can support McCain without being less principled, less committed, less Republican.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
I think there are some nervous nellies here at RS that do not appreciate dialogue and civil discussion when the issue is something that our Republican nominee does not agree with. This is silly. I have never voted for anyone for POTUS that I agreed with 100%. The idea that somehow any deviation from what McCain wants is verboten from being talked about or threatens to completely destroy the Republican Party has never been the case. I think this kind of attitude requiring monologue instead of dialogue is why some are taking a leave of absence from this site.
The purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better.
Dr. Theodore Dalrymple
But the time for that is after the election. Now is not the time to bitterly, doggedly attack him on every transgression between now and election day.
Wait until after he wins, then ride his tail. Not before though. Wait until the job is done.
If the TrueConservatives™ bitterly fight our nominee, distracting us and depressing Republican activism and turnout, leading to a loss, then what was gained by turning some stupid signature upside down? Seriously.
This an election. This is not a personal opinion poll. If you want to make your precise views known, get a Facebook account and take the survey (I did, as did Pejman and a bunch of other RSers). But in the election, you need to pick a side and stick by it.
Win the war, then worry about winning the peace.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
I just think that the distraction and Republican activism is depressed more by putting a muzzle and a short leash on some folks in the party instead of depressed less. I agree with pick a side. When you pick that side you ought to think that side wants input from you. If you have to remain silent until after the election you don't get more excited and motivated. It doesn't work that way.
The purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better.
Dr. Theodore Dalrymple
This is not at you, Neil. There are many people here, in short the die-hard contingent of the Fredheads, who are willing to fly in formation, long having established the "well, I don't WANT to, but I will for the good of the party and as the best of only bad options for conservatism as a movement" byline.
And largely we do (fly in formation), but there are some people here who seem intent on not letting sleeping dogs lie, ascribing to McCain properties to which he is not entitled, by virtue of his long history. Some of us (me included) feel strongly enough that we refuse to leave that unchallenged.
Additionally, McCain himself caused the latest big uproar from the Fredhead contingent (at RedState and across the GOP Nation, I'm led to understand), and we understand he's been told to "knock it off". Good. That's a world-class plan.
So what I ask, in return for the Fredheads staying in formation, is for the McCainiacs to quit lecturing to us about what a wonderful conservative McCain is, and for McCain himself to stay out of the way of conservatives fighting the good fight. It's really that simple for me.
I think I'm speaking for my peeps here when I say that we recognize the many good things McCain brings to the table, and at the end of the day we can live with them. But we just don't want the word 'conservative' to be misused.
Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J
Cults are full of blind followers and most people with brains reject cults!
CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”
The last conservative we nominated was Reagan. Before that, Goldwater. Before that, Coolidge. Conservatives rarely win our national party fights.
Actually that's a 66% win record. Bush the Elder ran as a Conservative and was elected as Reagan's 3rd term.
If you discount FDR, the liberals have only one win with Carter (barely beating Ford! carter did not really run as a lib, but we'll give them the win). Clinton ran as a 'conservative' democrat promising tax cuts etc. and does not count.
Seems to me, the problem is in the nominating process, not the general elections.
Read what I said again. I said our party fights. That means primaries, not the general elections.
Yes, I know very well that conservatives can and do win Presidential elections. In fact that's a 75% win percentage by my count (Reagan wins twice, Goldwater loses once, Coolidge wins once) because there's no way, no how I'm allowing GHWB as one of our own :-)
But you have to win the primary to get to the general, and we generally have not done that. Even Goldwater only won because stronger candidates stood aside for the mauling at the hands of the ticket of Johnson and Kennedy's ghost.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
Neil, I would contend that elections matter based more on how the candidate runs. When candidates run as Conservatives they win by and large...look at the Democrat 50 state plan and their efforts to recruit right of center candidates!
If McCain insists on running as a moderate/liberal on some issues we should be allowed to say "Hey John, if you want to win, we don't think you are going about it right!"
CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”
My goodness! I consider the Tories to be close to "moderate socialist." with Labor and the Libs going left from there!
Yet another thing we disagree on BR
Go spurs Go!
CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”
LOL...It may be academic anyway the way the Spurs have played against NO
:>)
CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”
Republican Moderates insist the Party run from it's principles and become more Moderate so the Republican Party can attract more Moderates and independents. At the same time the Conservatives are being hammered by a tactic perfected by the Democrats of dumbing down the definition of Moderate by acting like, (even saying as in your post) there is no such thing as a Moderate therefore there is no reliable definition of the label Moderate.
The term and the label that goes along with it has always had a specific meaning and can be defined by those Martin has talked about or who act like those Martin mentioned. See Chuck Hagel, George Voinovich, John Warner, Lindsey Graham, John McCain, Lincoln Chafee etc.
CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”
McCain is no moderate, he is a maverick. not the same thing. In fact it is hard to find an issue that McCain is moderate on. He is gung-ho one way or another for the issues he believes in, so much so that like Bush, he is almost immune to circumstances and evidence.(CFR, Immigration)
On issues he is not strong on (like the economy) he will just take the advice of people he trusts.
I would classify him as a "hit or miss extremist"
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
Exactly.
Giuliani good, McCain good, Chaffee bad.
"I will look for people in the cast of John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and my friend the late William Rehnquist – jurists of the highest caliber who know their own minds, and know the law, and know the difference." - John McCain
I like him a lot, would like him as a veep, or attorny general, or even Sec of State.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
Sec. of State is my preferred job for him. He's made a career of reforming the unreformable, being immune from criticism, and not being afraid of controversy.
That pretty much sums up what we need in a Secretary of State right now.
"I will look for people in the cast of John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and my friend the late William Rehnquist – jurists of the highest caliber who know their own minds, and know the law, and know the difference." - John McCain
Rudy would make a great Sec. of State for the reasons you mention. He wasn't and isn't my choice for POTUS, but he would probably make the best Sec. of State in years.
He was my choice, with some reservations (i.e. abortion), but he'd be able to do most of what I wanted him to do as Sec. of State.
It would be a great day for America if he was ever made Sec. of State.
"I will look for people in the cast of John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and my friend the late William Rehnquist – jurists of the highest caliber who know their own minds, and know the law, and know the difference." - John McCain
Give him a role like Dick Cheney and let him be actively involved. I think Romney would make a better SecState actually, and plus I wouldn't mind holding off on my Rudy love for four years for him to come back for a Rudy/Jindal ticket in 2012.
Someone's got to punch the hippies.
BR,
I don't think Rudy would help McCain as VP as much as if he were Secretary of State or Attorney General, Besides...he brings more negatives to McCain than positives because a McCain/Guiliani ticket would be poison to SoCons and ensure a depression in their turnout in November.
CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”
I think he's going to be AG, fwiw. I just love Rudy, I love streetfighting and I think he'll hit Obama and the Witch in a way McCain never will. He enjoys hitting Democrats, McCain enjoys going on talk show circuits with them-after all they're his "friends".
Someone's got to punch the hippies.
POTUS or VP...not for me
But Yeah...I could see Rudy in a dark room...with HRC in a chair and a lamp over her head....(sigh)....dreamy!
CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”
It's the name, what am I supposed to do?
Hey, DIDN'T I tell you? RedState is STILL conservative country, and I told you the management was STILL more like us than like you-know-who.
MAN, I tell you, it's a BURDEN being right all the time. But I bear it with all the dignity I can muster.
Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J
Conservatives do need to cut the moderate wing of the party some slack on some issues. The moderate wing could stand to get with the program on certain core issues, and it may be that the GOP needs to establish what those core issues really are.
I'm fairly convinced that a properly non-interfering federal government would solve most intra-party friction over social issues, and would probably do more to advance socially conservative causes than the current, somewhat quixotic approach.
At the same time, we probably ought to be looking to get the party as a whole on board with things like earmark reform and transparency, reduced spending and taxation, reform and reduction of non-discretionary spending projects, and the like.
And, as a PR issue, having principles to point at that we actually do generally follow will do us far, far more good than any amount of maundering over which faction is more at fault for our current situation.
--
This too shall pass.
it may be that the GOP needs to establish what those core issues really are.
Our core issues have been defined by our platform as written and expanded upon since the party was founded...to act like it can't be defined is deceptive at best!
CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”
It's supposed to be a statement of guiding principles. It's written by the membership of the Party. You're right it's as good a toilet paper because "Moderates" and our leadership refuse to honor it just as our representatives and activist judges refuse to "enforce" and honer the Constitution of the United States of America
CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”
Just a typical, small town, white girl...
This is the moment of truth for the Conservative movement and for the GOP - can one survive without the other?
The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther
Liberals have been great at differentiating the two. Conservatives stink at it.
The political process and the party apparati are just one means to an end. Liberals have largely succeeded circumventing the political process. They have been a minority that has been unacceptable to the general public for generations, yet they succeeded in taking their fight underground (e.g. arts, entertainment, litigation, education, academia, media) and winning. Liberals work undercover, while the Democrats posture as moderates and provide cover. Many moderate Republicans do not do that for their conservative activist brothers.
The realm of conservatism is not really political. The true conservative abhors politics. Further, the political process is a poor place for activists because of status quo inertia and "king numbers".
So guys like me are very much the cultural warriors. I'm a hardcore conservative, but I don’t demand puritanical conservatism from my elected officials. All politicians engage in compromise. Reagan was one of the great compromisers of all time. All politicians serve their constituents by delivering campaign favors and bringing home money for local projects has been going on forever.
The game is not a game with and abacus where we count “Ds” and Rs”. Politics is not the only forum. There are greater battles than what is communicated on the surface. There are greater battles than 2008. Many around here would be well served to differentiate the conservative activist from the Republican politician. It would serve both conservatism and the Republican Party.
In many respects, conservatives of the old school (Kirk, Burke, etc...) were considered conservatives precisely because of their moderation. In some ways, conservatism is moderation on steroids.
I see conservatism as a form of big-picture cultural consciousness. Conservatives realize the worth of experience and tradition in the evolution of a culture (hence the deference paid to religion and ritual in society). But culture does evolve. And conservatives, according to Kirk, are judged not on their resistance to change, rather the wisdom with which they preserve the best of culture in the face of change.
Drawing a circle around onesself and then saying that only the pure my enter my circle of hot-button issues strikes me as being particularly progressive and exclusive. Conservatives are liberal in the classical sense. We do not draw circles.
Rather, we are guardians of the best and brightest of what our forefathers had to offer us in their experience.
That is why I have no trouble with McCain. Retreating into an exclusive circle only makes one irrelevant, which leaves the game to the ones with the loudest mouths and the most extreme tempers. This, my friends, is not conservatism.
"The most dangerous form in which oppression can overshadow a community is that of popular sway" -James Fenimore Cooper
the moderate's willingness to compromise.
I'm just saying compromise falls well into the conservative tradition as long as the best is protected in that compromise.
"The most dangerous form in which oppression can overshadow a community is that of popular sway" -James Fenimore Cooper
... as it does not cross the line into capitulation. In so far as we realize that there are places where compromise is not possible.
Let me illustrate;
If A brings water, and the other guy B brings orange juice, compromise is possible. If A brings water, and B brings urine, compromise is not possible.
In the real world, if a liberal Democrat advocates the immediate nationalization of the American healthcare industry. For a "moderate" Republican to suggest it be done over five years is not a compromise, it is capitulating.
Do you get it?
we are guardians of the best and brightest of what our forefathers had to offer us in their experience.
I agree with most of your post, especially the quote above. My question is...how have we done on that?
Doesn't seem like we've held the line does it?
CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”
This headline on the drudge report will give you a good idea
"Gingrich warns GOP of ‘real disaster' this fall"
Newt is right (and he's correct too... :-) )
The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther
"Moderates" are not in any way wholly to blame for our current situation. Everybody had a hand in creating this s**t-sanwich. Bush and his stupid "New Tone™" Tom DeLay and Dennis Hastert forgetting that they also had a mandate independent of the President as well as "moderates" collapsing into jello at the threat of a negative article in the Press.
The issue now is how to move forward and rebuild a majority where even the squishiest of our squishes would stand strong on our side without wetting themselves when a journalist lifts a pen and an eyebrow.
While we as a party must have some positions and ideals that we stand for, there is some room for differences of opinion. If we could agree to work toward a federalistic approach, there could be room for some of these differences without trying to kill each other.
That said, what else can you call non-conservative Republicans besides moderates or liberals? "Republican" can't be used because without some standards, a party label means nothing. Being for lowering spending doesn't make you a Republican if you are wrong on every other issue, just like being pro-abortion by itself does not make you a Democrat (although I probably won't vote for you if so).
as "true conservatives". All those "true conservatives" kind of screwed up the Republican brand for the next decade or so.
I think the rise of conservative talk radio has been a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it gets out the message and counters liberal spin on the networks and NPR.
On the other hand, there is a hightened sense of purity testing that is not helpful.
Has it ever occurred to anyone that Reagan would have been reviled by the likes of Limbaugh in 1986 for passing the amnesty bill, or in 1981 for raising taxes?
It seems that since the fastest growing segment in radio stations in the U.S. is hispanic stations, our talk show hosts have a stake in making immigration such an issue for "true conservatives"...it gets rid of the competition.
Meanwhile, "true conservatives" will drive every hispanic out of the Republican party and withdraw back to a pure, loyal, loyal opposition for the next 50 years.
"The most dangerous form in which oppression can overshadow a community is that of popular sway" -James Fenimore Cooper
there weren't that many "true conservatives" that were able to get any footing in the party. That isn't much of a comparison. It isn't like the Republicans were great before then, it was mostly a lesser of two evils just like now.
Again, we have to stand for something - being "Democrat-lite" isn't standing for something any more now than it was prior to Reagan. There is nothing wrong with wanting ideological purity as long as we remember that there is some legitimate room for debate on some issues. I don't know how you classify yourself, but if you are a conservative, would you rather be right or popular? We probably aren't going to be both without a Reagan-like charismatic and optimistic leader and a massive re-education of the general populace in the role of government.
That means not being irrelevant or tone deaf to changes happening in the demographics of our democracy.
We must stay relevant. That is not to say compromise the most elemental aspects of tradition that protect tradition; rather, it is to take the long view.
Being right can be quite lonely. I'm sure Stalin, Mao and Castro ground many right people into the earth whose only crime was losing relevancy in the eyes of the population.
As far as what I am, I'm not sure any more. I came here thinking I was a conservative, but found myself arguing on the left of many people. I am not a moderate. I am very assertive and I'm not afraid to be unpopular.
I guess I'm just a realist that sees that our democracy has evolved into a mixed economy with a welfare state and large urban areas housing large numbers of people who are marginalized, as well as millions of desperate people who risk death to get here.
Not being a socialist myself, I look for non-statist ways to fix these problems and incorporate these people. As my tag-line indicates, popular sway can be dangerous.
It is only through irrelevance that the populace is swayed by the opposing view. So, it is as important to be relevant as it is to be right.
"The most dangerous form in which oppression can overshadow a community is that of popular sway" -James Fenimore Cooper
The old Left viewed the world purely in ecomomic terms. Correspondingly, many older conservative arguments rely purely on economic solutions. However, the new Left saw the futility of the old Left fight and sought to radically undermine our culture, traditions and heritge - that which you claim to support. They exploit racial and cultural divisions. Turning a blind eye to the dangerous hateful sermons of Jeramiah Wright is not traditonal conservatism. And those who are suprised by such rants are naive. The Left brought this culture war to us by design. Accepting its assimilation into our culture in he name of moderation is not conservative at all.
I not only claim to support Western Civ, I really do support it.
I don't turn a blind eye to Rev. Wright (not sure whether that was aimed at me)
Racial and cultural divisions are also exploited by the right in the immigration debate, though...and that isn't accepting radical philosophy into civilization. It means accepting flesh and blood people into our civilization.
If we make them the enemy, they will become the enemy in terms of the culture war. Instead, we should facilitate their inclusion into our culture. That is the American genius.
And please don't draw a parallel with terrorism. I'm not saying we should make nice to terrorists (I could see that one coming from someone out there who can't tell a Mexican from a terrorist).
"The most dangerous form in which oppression can overshadow a community is that of popular sway" -James Fenimore Cooper
The passive conservatism you frequently reference will get crushed every time by liberal activists. I too have read just about everything Kirk has written, but they weren't always right. Their moderation resulted in the support of monarchs and slavery.
You cannot preserve the best of our civilization if you permit the disintegration and balkanization of our country. What our country always did with immigrants is wholly different now. In the past unity, patriotism, pride and respect for our history, traditions and heritage were woven into the fabric of our society inlcuding Hollywood, our arts, our holidays and our schools. Not anymore.
Racial and cultural divisions are also exploited by the right in the immigration debate, though...and that isn't accepting radical philosophy into civilization. It means accepting flesh and blood people into our civilization.
This is demagoguery at best and race baiting at worse and I'm sick of being called a racist because I expect my government to know who is coming into this country after 911. It's not about Race, it's never been about race. I have Latinos in my family whom I love very much and it enrages me to be tagged as a racist because I want my government to live up to oneof the responsibilities give to it on the Constitution!
CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”
So to be 'relevant' to the burgeoning Latino population, granting amnesty (or so sanitized sounding verion) is the way to be 'relevant'?
Why bother?
The problem with seeking relevance based on a contemporary/instantaneous point of view is that there is no room for teh application of strategic principles. If you can waive the immigration laws to become 'relevant' to 20 million people have broken the law, your new principle that replaces the long held 'strict adherence to the Law of the Land' and 'we are a nation of laws' becomes, 'well if enough people break a law, just abolish it!'
Try that program with Stop signs. Or taxes.
I guess I'm just a realist that sees that our democracy has evolved into a mixed economy with a welfare state and large urban areas housing large numbers of people who are marginalized, as well as millions of desperate people who risk death to get here.
Explain how adherence to the Conservative principles of self reliance, hard work, government non-interference, honest application of the law (illegal aliens) and community based charity would not solve this issue?
I can point to the plethora of liberal actions that have caused these problems.
Real Conservatism works every time it's tried.
(sorry Reply to This dropped me out on the main thread - reposted here)
Reagan compromised because he had to...He also had to contend with "Moderate" Republicans then too. Jim Baker and Donald Regan and his crew in particular made Reagan's last three years in office a mess!
CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”
He had to like every single politician has to. This country is too big and there are too many divergent interests. The are of politics is not the same as philosophy. In a bi-partisan system, coaltions will always come together to challenge the ruling class.
Jim Baker was (unfortunately) a member of his administration and later a Bush I sec o State, (unfortunately).
Not a guy I hold in high esteem. Howard Baker was a much better politician.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
No, he's thinking of Jim Baker. Jim Baker was Reagan's first Chief of Staff, and then became Sec. of Tres. in his second term. He was replaced as Chief of Staff by Don Regan, who was later sacked and replaced with Howard Baker, who had just retired from the Senate.
It's confusing because Reagan had two Chief of Staffs that were named Baker. I got them confused in the past too.
Anyhow, in defense of Jim Baker, whom I don't agree with on everything, including some major FP questions, nobody who John Bolton thinks is a great man can be all bad. He was and remains a loyal Republican and a hard working, decent man.
"I will look for people in the cast of John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and my friend the late William Rehnquist – jurists of the highest caliber who know their own minds, and know the law, and know the difference." - John McCain
Based on some statements by staffers in the Reagan White House Jim Baker had a reputation as a back stabber and constantly working behind the scenes to thwart and undermine Reagan's more Conservative initiatives!
CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”
been out of public service, Even though he is a fellow Houstonian, I never liked the guy, at all.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
It seems that since the fastest growing segment in radio stations in the U.S. is hispanic stations, our talk show hosts have a stake in making immigration such an issue for "true conservatives"...it gets rid of the competition.
Meanwhile, "true conservatives" will drive every hispanic out of the Republican party and withdraw back to a pure, loyal, loyal opposition for the next 50 years.
More preaching from the "Moderates" on the party to us nuckle dragging Conservatives. We should just give up on trying to gain control of our borders and let anyone who wants to waltz in and bomb us at will...but hey, at least we won't make illegal aliens mad and maybe they'll vote for us! We don't need to monitor who's coming into this country, and why worry that some illegals are dragging diseases from their third world countries into America after we had wiped these same diseases out decades ago. We shouldn't expect our Federal government to tend to one of it's legitimate functions as authorized by the Constitution to protect our sovereignty as a nation because we need Hispanics to win the next election!
CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”
"I will look for people in the cast of John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and my friend the late William Rehnquist – jurists of the highest caliber who know their own minds, and know the law, and know the difference." - John McCain
If you follow the assertion to it's logical conclusion my statement has a basis in fact which disqualifies it as a straw man!
CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”
Strawman = People who argue a certain segment of the party is chasing Hispanics out of the part don't favor a secure border.
"I will look for people in the cast of John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and my friend the late William Rehnquist – jurists of the highest caliber who know their own minds, and know the law, and know the difference." - John McCain
Strawman also = People who argue a certain segment of the party is racist because they want border control.
Kinda like that huh RandomGuy?
"Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper" Peter Griffin...Family Guy
conform and celebrate diversity....or else!!!
No, I assume they are racist because they say things like "Mexicans are drunk drivers" and call Miami a "Third-world Country," and because they oppose most legal immigration as well as illegal.
Kind of like that, aaronbg.
"I will look for people in the cast of John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and my friend the late William Rehnquist – jurists of the highest caliber who know their own minds, and know the law, and know the difference." - John McCain
Random.....I have been reading quite a bit here for the last month or two and I find you in most threads to have a lot of good opinions. The only problem is that you hold a grudge against people you disagree with. You have called different posters racist on a daily basis for about the last 2 weeks and I frankly am sick of it. You really need to wrap your mind around the concept that not everyone for border control is a racist. I understand that you have been riled up lately about what you consider an anti moderate feeling here, but trust me you are not helping win anyone to your side of the argument. Now go ahead an reply with your usual sarcasm about how much better you are then us evil border control racists.
"Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper" Peter Griffin...Family Guy
conform and celebrate diversity....or else!!!
I have called NOBODY a racist. I have, repeatedly, called Finrod's "Mexicans and drunk drivers" assertion racist, true, because it IS racist. I think Finrod may be a racist based on his opinions and the way he deals with things, but I don't know that for sure. Everybody has a blind spot and I won't accuse him of being a racist even though I will not pretend he hasn't spouted racist language, which he has, repeatedly.
I also think that Tom Tancredo is a racist for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is his close association with Bay Buchannan, who in my book is an unrepentant racist and bigot just like Pat "Hitler wasn't a threat" Buchannan, as well as "Miami is a third-world city," among other things.
I also think that people who refer to guest-worker programs as "Amnesty" are at least flirting with racism, either that, or are simply not thinking it through, because they have nothing to do with "Amnesty" unless you consider being Hispanic something one need be granted "Amnesty" for. This is typical Tancredo tactics: Label something you don't like "Amnesty," ignore the implications of what labeling it "Amnesty" is.
That said, of course I do not think, nor have I ever said, that people who honestly just favor stricter border control are racist. I don't think John Thune is a racist for example. I too, favor increased border security. I probably favor some form of "Amnesty" as Tancredo would define it, although not how I would define it or I think the vast majority of Americans would define it, but I'm open to different methods/timelines etc. Mike Pence was helpful on issues like this, actually trying to work out a compromise between the house bill and McCain/Kennedy. He was denounced as a sellout and "Amnesty" favorer by Tancredo.
I don't much care if I don't help my cause on redstate by calling out racist language when I see it. I will not sit back and let entire races of people be slandered as "Drunk drivers," by people who then attempts to rationalize it by saying they are merely for border security. I will not sit back while our Cuban population, who are among the most loyal and dedicated Americans on the planet, are dismissed as turning Miami into a "Third World" city. I don't much care what it does to my cause or reputation a this moment. I'm looking longterm. Such language is destructive to the Republican party and to America.
"I will look for people in the cast of John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and my friend the late William Rehnquist – jurists of the highest caliber who know their own minds, and know the law, and know the difference." - John McCain
OK Random...Finrod was wrong for his post about Mexican Drunk Drivers...but your obsession in bringing it into every thread you participate makes you look slightly unhinged...especially when Finrod isn't here and hasn't said anything...I couldn't be held responsible for what he said so why drag it into this thread?
CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”
I don't bring it up for no reason. It's emblematic of the entire problem that I'm speaking of. Some people have a total blind spot in realizing how racist some of their supposed "arguments" are, and what's worse, they've infected a very large chunk of the Republican party to the point where it's doing damage to BOTH sides of the debate.
"I will look for people in the cast of John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and my friend the late William Rehnquist – jurists of the highest caliber who know their own minds, and know the law, and know the difference." - John McCain
You called me a racist because I found a study in North Carolina that found that 3 times as many Hispanics had been arrested for drunk driving as whites or blacks, per capita. That survey knocked down your assertion that people who don't like the presence of illegals (who are heavily Hispanic) because they tend to drink and drive more *must* be racist because illegals certainly couldn't just, you know, actually drink and drive more-- it must just be their racist imagination!
Since you have exhibited that you hear the 'racist dogwhistle' (enough anyways to accuse multiple people here of racism), that to me implies that *you* in fact are the actual racist. This is only cemented by the fact that instead of confronting my evidence and giving up your busted claim, you started screaming "racism!"-- the usual refuge of the liberal scoundrel that's lost an argument and can't come up with a logical counterpoint.
---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.
My friend, frankly, the reason why you don't understand how racist this reasoning is, and why it is void of logic on so many levels, "IS" why you have a problem with issues regarding race.
"I will look for people in the cast of John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and my friend the late William Rehnquist – jurists of the highest caliber who know their own minds, and know the law, and know the difference." - John McCain
You think facts are racist.
That says more about you than anything you could say.
I challenge anyone else here to find anything racist I've said. You're the only one that sees it, therefore it's you.
---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.
Facts are not racist. This is true.
INTERPRETATION of facts, however, can be, and frequently are racist. As is your interpretation of these "facts".
Not to mention, citing one study in North Carolina as proof of something else in Tennessee...yah...not so much a "fact".
"I will look for people in the cast of John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and my friend the late William Rehnquist – jurists of the highest caliber who know their own minds, and know the law, and know the difference." - John McCain
As I said, follow the quote I referenced to it's logical conclusion.
CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”
Call me stupid but didn't Republicans start winning in the mid 90s?
But you're absolutely right...we'd have won by even larger margins if we'd have kept running like we had for the previous 40 years...Those Conservatives really messed up the brand...
Yupp...you're absolutely right
CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”
It all boils down to your definition of "moderate." In one case you have people who are not entirely in line with the "conservative" platform. Someone might be very strong on defense and fiscal conservatism, but pro-gay marriage and drug legalization. Someone else might be socially conservative and at the same time favor the capital gains and inheritance taxes. These individuals tend to balance out as moderates but strongly support whatever side they take on the issues.
On the other hand you have people who are not hard to the conservative side on all of their issues but tend to lean conservative. They may support fiscal responsibility and favor lower taxes but believe that there are certain situations that call for greater government involvement. They may be pro-life but may not support a federal ruling banning it, etc.
I'd predict that the vast majority of people fall into these categories. Personally, I would consider myself in the former group.
The point of my dairy was that moderates and conservatives are all Republicans and we should be working together and not tearing each other down. We both need each other. Conservatives are the base of the party and I accept that simple fact. But like a coin, there is also another side and we moderates are just apart of you as you are of us.
I also want to point out that it wasn't moderates who abandon the Republican Party in 2006 or this primary. Your article is nice, but you forgot to tell us what you guys were doing up until this point. Conservatives keep saying they are the base. Well you guys need to start acting like a base of the party. You need to get out there to donate, vote, and sign people up to become Republicans. We moderates can't carry the party on by ourselves. Stop acting like you are 2nd-class citizens in your own party. You don't need to pound your chest and throw moderates under the bus, because that isn't really helpful in the long run.
Make McCain realize that you are with him and he will be with you. If he wins totally on the support of moderates, independents, and Reagan-Democrats, he will feel that he doesn't need conservatives anymore.
And by all means make your voice heard. However do so in a constructive matter. The argument shouldn't be conservatives vs moderates, but what the Republican Party's message should be about this election. Currently, you guys are shutting yourself out of the debate by with-holding your support for the party as a whole and the moderates are taking up the slack. Conservatives have the power to take back the message, but complaining about it here won't help you. You are beating yourself up and getting nothing done.
I share your concerns in regards to McCain's voting against Bush's tax cuts, I worry about his support of abortion & embryonic stem-cell research, and I don't like the idea of shutting down Gitmo. In fact, I was a Rudy Giuliani supporter and I with-held my support for McCain for some time. If we are going to be completely honest, I was even thinking of leaving the Republican Party altogether. It took a conservative message to sell me on the the "Straight-Talk Express" and I haven't looked back since.
Let me leave you with some math that everyone can agree on:
Conservatives + Conservatives = Failure
Moderates + Moderates = Failure
Conservatives + Moderates = The Repulican Party
The formula we actually have is
Conservative money and votes + Moderate politicians and policy = The Republican Party
And non-conservatives mustered more votes than we did, you know. If you want conservative policies, you have to drum up conservative votes. And that means winning primaries.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
Liberals vote for liberal politicians/policies
Conservatives vote for conservative politicians/policies
"moderates" vote for the guy/gal with the best hair(fill in any other non-sequitor vote calculation)
By definition, the vaunted "moderates and independents" are people who don't actually have a preference or don't care. I am not talking here about people that are split like a Rudy or a Pawlenty. Those people vote based on policy, and they aren't voting in the middle, they are voting one way or the other depending on what matters to them.
It is conservatives that work the phones, contribute the cash, and deliver the lion's share of votes for Republicans.
I will also quibble with your "more conservatives" in the primary comment, because it isn't even close to true. First of all McCain didn't receive majorities until he was pretty much the last person standing. Second, it is a canard to suggest that conservatives did not vote for McCain in the primary. In fact, making any kind of conclusions about the state of the GOP based on the primary results is extremely difficult to do, since there were many dynamics in a crowded field. The most I'd be willing to say is that in a crowded, contentious race, the guy who is owed the most favors from local politicians has an advantage.
What really bothers me about what you said is that it is a dismissal of the real concerns. 1) We elect "conservatives" and they cave as soon as the opportunity arises 2) Many are very tired of non-conservatives constantly lecturing conservatives that they have to set aside their principles for the good of the party - which begs the question of why someone should care about the good of a party that is opposed to their beliefs 3) When conservatives do the hard work for the party election after election, there is something seriously wrong with the argument that if they don't like it they can leave, but the party should change to accomodate "independents" who have never been friendly to the party, and most of whom will never be.
Frankly, bottom line - I expect that a conservative/Republican site should be friendly to conservative positions. I expect that the non-conservatives in the party can have their voices heard, but they have no right to tell me I am out of line standing for my principles on a site and in a party that officially stands for those same principles. If that is too much to ask from Redstate, then those who see things that way should be expected to leave. If that is too much to ask from the GOP, then the party should not be surprised that their foot-soldiers are all suddenly going on sick-call.
These are my feelings, but as I said before, I am voting for our nominee. I want to make it crystal clear, I am just sick of being lectured and ridiculed by people who have done a lot less for this party and for this country simply because I don't agree with them.
I've been allowed to voice my opposition to plenty of Red State orthodoxy and allowed to remain. Granted I've been handed my head a couple times and roundly criticized for some of what I say, but more for how I've said it. That's to be expected when you are running against a powerful current.
When it comes to the Party however, you are dead on. But you don't give a possible solution to the problem of a center left leadership of a right to very right party.
The issue as I see it, having worked in the conventions on a local and State level is that those "Moderates" in leadership don't only come out in during the elections...they stay active in the party during off years and retain control of the party as a result despite their inferior numbers. They network and promote within the party structure from a crony system that further maintains their control.
The only way the Party is going to break the hold they have over the Party is for Conservatives to stay active in the off years. Run for offices within the party and keep those who would vote you into leadership engaged in off years.
CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”
I was speaking in theoretical terms. I meant that to be more of an admonission than a criticism. Redstate is a good place, but their are a few people here, and a couple upper echelon people at that that make me queasy just reading what they have to say.
I like to vent now and then. Heh.
What really bothers me about what you said is that it is a dismissal of the real concerns. 1) We elect "conservatives" and they cave as soon as the opportunity arises 2) Many are very tired of non-conservatives constantly lecturing conservatives that they have to set aside their principles for the good of the party - which begs the question of why someone should care about the good of a party that is opposed to their beliefs 3) When conservatives do the hard work for the party election after election, there is something seriously wrong with the argument that if they don't like it they can leave, but the party should change to accomodate "independents" who have never been friendly to the party, and most of whom will never be.
This is, by far, the best argument on why conservatives are so upset by this election. You should expand this line of thought in a blog entry.
Speaking for myself, I don't think it's a good idea to side-line conservatives or moderates by either side. Instead of fighting (and by that, I mean vicious name-calling and hurling unfounded myths that we are "unfriendly" towards ) over the few diffences that we have, we should come together and expand our relationship based on issues/polices that we do agree on.
Are you serious?
McCain pulled mostly moderates while Conservatives divided conservatives up between at least four candidates and McCain still only squeaked by Romney in NE and NW states and either lost outright to Huckabee or just squeaked by him in the other other states.
I'll contend to my dying day that had McCain ran against any of the major candidates in a head to head match up he'd be in the Senate today seeking compromise with Kennedy or talking to Harry Reid about switching Parties like he did in 2000!
CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”
You basicly repeat time again, that we cannot be trusted. I think I read "moderates cannot be counted on" at least three times before I gave up reading.
You went on a tangent about *this* election while I was talking about the rift between conservatives and "moderates" and the source of it.
There was no rift in 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006 or during the primaries...
Now all of a sudden there is a big rift. During the 2004 Convention, you actively courted us and independents. You guys made us feel welcome as part of the Republican "Big-Tent of Politics" Party. Now that a moderate is leading the party, you guys turn a cold shoulder to both your support and donations. Are we feeling a little buryer's remorse?
Sure we have had our differnces. Sure we might have rubed each other wrong. Conservatives have pissed me off just as much as moderates have pissed you off. My argument, which I tried to get across in my dairy, is that at the end of the day we are all Republicans. We can go to a bar with each other and complain about those bloody liberals. Moderates are not out to destory or weaken the Republican Party, we actually strengthen the party by adding depth to what can be consider a boring two-party system.
I'm arguing for party unity and those up-side down banners do nothing for party unity. Why are you arguing against party unity?
try to understand it from our view, we haven't had a conservative since Ronald Reagan. To our thinking both Bush's and Dole were all pretty moderate. It feels like we are the ones supporting a party which has stiffed us.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
I did my duty...but Republican turnout was down in 2006 because a lot of Conservatives had had it with the out of control spending, turning a blind eye to corruption and the Amnesty fight.
The question I have is this...have we changed anythin in the two years since? Have earmarks been ended or curtailed? NO! Have we worked to stop the Corruption? No...look to Alaska!
Things have quieted down on the amnesty fight...but it's just a matter of time before "Moderates" work a deal with Dems in the dark of night and slip it in the back door when we're not looking!
CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”
Yeah, but who was in charge of all that out of control spending and turning a blind eye to corruption?
That's right: CONSERVATIVES!!
The whole point is that the out of control spending, etc...was the result of having Republicans who were not conservative.
My position is that "moderates" have repeatedly shown they cannot be trusted to stand strong when strength is needed on any issue - it's as if there exists within our "moderate" contingent a congenital inability to tell when compromise crosses the threshold into abject capitulation.
Amen on this point. As an excellent example look to the government shut down in the mid to late 90s. Slick Willy and the so called "Objective Press" were pushing the line that Republicans in Congress were responsible for the government shut down while Clinton bore no responsibility even though he vetoed compromise after compromise. Polls were showing real anger at the Republican Caucus as a result.
Amazingly for me, the Republicans stood strong for quite a while until the polls started to show the public turning on Clinton and at least giving him his share of the blame for the stalemate. Republicans win right?
No!!! Just when the battle was at it's apex...just when a little more fortitude and courage was call for..."Moderates" in the Party forced a total cave in and Clinton's issues were added into the compromise legislation.
Kind of puts me in mind of Brave Heart when the Scottish lords road off the field of battle just when their support would have won the battle!
CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”
The Party had already taken the political hits...it had sunk as low as it could sink. What in heavens name was accomplished by caving at the precise moment that Clinton was starting to take negative hits in public opinion is beyond me!
Bottom line...Conservatives took the field and fought...Conservative blood was spilled in the battle, and Moderates gave the battle to our enemies!
CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”
in this media-driven, sound bite, superficial political world is definitively NOT the kind of person who is going to stand up to ANY real adversity; they've made their way to where they are by being that "hail fellow well met" at the Rotary, Chamber, in the Legislature. They have good hair, are articulate, smile readily, and are NEVER agressive or confrontational. Like it or not, the same characteristics and character, or lack thereof, that make a good local TV anchorman make a good politician. As long as the qualifications for voting are the ability to fog a mirror, and sometimes not even that, that's the way it is going to be. Learn to live with it.
In Vino Veritas
They were confrontational....to their credit they raised hell all over the place and were beaten about the head by the press and the MSM...the damage was done....they caved just when the tide of battle was swinging their way and fortune was turning her smiling gaze upon them
and they quit!
They caved and gave Clinton everything he wanted!
Just like that...they take the political and popular hit...and quit. Nothing was gained...it was all negative because moderates pulled the rug out at just the right moment to mo maximum damage to Republicans, and Conservatives.
CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”
into linguini. They huff and puff and pound their chests, but when the wolf blows on their house, they cower and surrender. Just the way it is with 99 percent of politicians.
In Vino Veritas
Tim Schieferecke
I just commented up thread about how this is going around all over the place like it's an organized whisper campaign within the Party:
"How do you define 'Moderate?'"
"What is a 'Moderate?'"
As if there is no meaning to the word. As if there hasn't been and isn't a defining way to identify what is a moderate. Dumbing down the definition so it has no meaning and can't be used against those the term describes!
Past and present Moderates in the Senate
Specter
Snow
Collins
Graham
Warner
McCain
Voinovich
Chafee
Dole
CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”
Elizabeth Dole ACU Rating: 91
Arlen Specter ACU Rating: 45
"I will look for people in the cast of John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and my friend the late William Rehnquist – jurists of the highest caliber who know their own minds, and know the law, and know the difference." - John McCain
Bob Dole ACU lifetime: 82
http://www.acuratings.org/ratingsarchive/1996/iowamiss.html
As an FYI:
John McCain ACU: 82.3
http://www.acuratings.org/ratingsarchive/2006/2006Senate.htm
Eek!
Bob Dole doesn't like what your sayin fella, Bob Dole is not going to take this. Bob Dole is gonna go pop a Viagra.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
Bob Dole would also point out that I neglected to list John McCain’s 2007 ACU lifetime rating which is 82.16
http://www.acuratings.org/2007senate.htm
To Bob Dole I say sorry and have amended the record.
I doubt he was talking about Bob Dole. All the rest of the people in his list were either sitting Senators or Senators defeated in 2006.
"I will look for people in the cast of John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and my friend the late William Rehnquist – jurists of the highest caliber who know their own minds, and know the law, and know the difference." - John McCain
I was referring t0o Bob Dole because he was the last "Moderate" to run for the White House...It wasn't the biggest lanslide Republicans ever won was it?
CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”
Even if so, basic principle still stands.
If someone who votes twice as conservative as Specter and only a few points less then Tom Coburn is still a "moderate", you've got a goofy definition.
"I will look for people in the cast of John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and my friend the late William Rehnquist – jurists of the highest caliber who know their own minds, and know the law, and know the difference." - John McCain
It really doesn't count for either John McCain or Bob Dole for the purposes of this discussion, because both veered hard left for a crack at the presidential sweepstakes, which is really the point.
In addition, John McCain's lifetime ACU score is more than a little misleading. An ACU score over a lifetime that smooths out the bumps is useful, but in the case of someone who has changed greatly in their politics, it makes them look much different than they are.
but you didn't answer the question.
I was asking a legitimate question. We are throwing around labels, but we are not talking about the issues behind the labels.
What makes someone a moderate or conservative?
NC
As one of those dreaded moderates here on RS, I dug around a bit and found a pretty good version of what moderates would consider a pretty good moderate manifesto. You can agree or disagree with this as you see fit. But I tend to beleive that the following moderate agenda more accurately defines where the vast majority of Americans are, not on the Far Left or the Far Right, squarely moderate in their views.
I also think that if you stand back and measure the Republican nominee for President, John McCain against this manifesto, you'll find it fits him pretty well.
A passion for civil liberties;
A disdain for conformity and suspicion of authority;
A belief that the Constitution is a living, breathing document with timeless values that must be made relevant in a modern age;
A commitment to protect the environment and not engage in mindless exploitation of the nation's natural beauty. A spirited case must be made for reusable energy sources like solar power. Modern technology provides many options before the earth is harshly, brutally, and needlessly pillaged.
A strong belief that diversity -- gender, racial, social, sexual, ethnic, and religious -- should be celebrated because it gives the United States moral strength. Diversity -- in the long-term, encourages respect, understanding, and a greater sense of community;
A commitment to fiscal prudence and limited government;
A recognition that government does have a basic social responsibility to help those in need;
A belief that the nation does have international responsibilities;
A belief that God and religion have a very important place in America -- at the dinner table and in churches, temples, and mosques. But it should never be used by politicians to advance a narrow moral agenda;
A belief that the national government should be used in a limited manner to advance the common good;
A commitment never to put party above country;
and
A responsibility to publicly criticize those who call themselves Republican when the situation merits.
Moderate/Progressives have a duty to vote against the party line when it doesn't serve the greater good. Doing so doesn't make them less Republican; it demonstrates that they have the honor, political courage, and intellectual honesty to put nation above party.
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
for the multi-culti stuff.
By the way, I apologize for calling you names before.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
document"? Forced diversity? I'm colorblind already, I reject forced diversity outright. It's all about content of character, not quotas. I can no longer engage you in meaningful discussion.
Tim Schieferecke
I'm with you, Tim. The first thing to pop out was the term "common good." What one person sees as a "common good" another will find downright evil. It sounds like an Obama campaign speech.
Here's a news flash. Just about EVERYONE on the planet wants to limit government to what is necessary for the "common good." They've been wanting it for thousands of years.
"There is an endless stream of Jackasses wanting to take away your liberty and property, and they all have a GOOD reason."
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
Fine, you don't like my manifesto of moderation, I challenge you to produce or find your own describing what you mean by conservatism.
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
We the People, of the United States of America, in order to form a more perfect union...you can look the rest of it up!
CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”
ace
You can take what I have posted above, re-write it into what you believe is a true conservative set of positions on those issues.
That is my intellectual challenge request to you. Define what is your view of true conservatism on those issues.
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
I believe true conservatism is defined by the Constitution as it was written and intended by the founders.
I believe the Constitution is what the founders said it was and that was to define and limit the scope of the Federal and I believe the Bill of writes as a guide to what our individual rights are and in no way describes all of them! I believe fidelity to what the Constitution is the quintessential definition of a Conservative.
CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”
The Consitution was a series of compromises between various factions of stonger and weaker federalists. It was then approved by State Conventions, and the advocates for the Constitution in those conventions chose to interpret the various provisions of the document as would be necessary to get approval for it in their respective states.
The Constitution is quite deliberately vague on some points. If you could go back and time and ask Madison and Hamilton what was meant by the necessary and proper clause, you would get very different answers. Indeed if you asked Madison about the clause in 1788, you would probably get a different answer from him than he would provide in 1792.
We've spent the last 200+ years of our country's history fighting (sometimes quite literally) about the meaning of the document, so I don't think you can point to the Consitution and say it tells us what a conservative is.
By the way, I am not attacking the Consitution. I think it is an absolutely amazing document that, if anything, points out how various factions united by an overall common belief in a single goal (a stronger federal union) could put aside differences around smaller issues. There is a lesson their for various factions of our party.
NC
Sorry, did not hopefully thread jack your blog as you seemed to me to be characterizing what moderates believed. As one of those thought I'd put down a marker.
My apologizes if my post turned into a TJ.
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
Maintaining the most kick ass military ever.
No Social Security program.
Right to work legislation everywhere.
Small govt. through excising the majority of all social programs. Let the churches take back over this their traditional role.
Oil wells wherever oil is available in our U S of A.
Nuclear power plants from sea to shining sea.
No carbon taxes ever.
Taxes based on revenue needs, not "fairness".
Tax deductions for private or parochial school education.
No windfall profits taxes ever.
No eminent domain.
Personal responsibility or an "on your own society" being the norm.
No illegal immigration.
In short, constitutionally based governance that upsizes the individual and hobbles govt.
How's dat?
Tim Schieferecke
Ever? Are you saying that there are no legitimate reasons for eminent domain?
Maybe you meant no eminent domain for private to private transfers of land?
___________________________________
Just like PayPal, except it's free and a $25 bonus to sign up!
That too depends on the issue. Before I took a politcs class in college, I just thought it applied to clothing and fashion and lifestyle. It still was not until years later I cared enough to really understand it.
I do think conservatism is also relative and needs to be discussed on a specific issue-by-issue basis, especially if the term leaves people with questions. In general though, at least "conservatism" often applies to a single side of most issues to which the term is applicable. The same cannot always be said of "moderation."
I guess I should add to read my general response below to this blog. This would likely have more sense if I started with that.
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/ronaldreaganevilempire.htm
for starters
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
was not a social con.
btw, other social cons
Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, FDR, JFK...
so-conservatism served also to blunt the deleterious effects of econ liberalism
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
game
Then I disagree with Reagan in this case. I would no more support a Federal law to restore school prayer than some of the other ideas I have heard floated to change the constitution. I agree with Jefferson and the need to keep Federal power out of the practice of religion.
Now, talk to me about a state ballot initiative to allow say the citizens of the State of South Dakota to decide abortion, prayer, gay marriage or any other, well I'm all for that Federalist move to keep the power of the Federal government in check.
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
the states. He considered the study of the Bible as esential to being an educated person and essential that the US people follow judeo-christian values for our system of govt and liberty to function.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
Jefferson never missed a Sunday.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
I'd be careful about claiming Jefferson as a Christian. It is true that he was for formal separation of Church and state, but that was because in his day, the Anglican/Episcopal church was in essence the state church of Virginia, supported, in part, out of government reviews. He was not a big fan of that fact.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible
NC
I agree with Jefferson and the need to keep Federal power out of the practice of religion.
Wasn't the Federal government doing just that when it stepped into local school districts and imposed it's extremist secularist interpretation of the First Amendment on every community in the country?
CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”
Jefferson and all the founders believed in keeping the State out of the Church not the Church out of the State.
Now we've turned it on its head. Now the State can regulate what is said in the Church through the IRS but any expression of Christianity is stomped on by Jack Booted Liberals like Berry Lind
CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”
Gamecock, Thomas Jefferson in his day was about the furtherest thing possible from a social conservative. He wrote his own version of the new testament, which essentially edited out any claims to Jesus being the son of God. He was a huge fan of the French revolution, which was not exactly a social conservative movement.
In his day, Jefferson was a small government, states right conservative (though that did not stop him from taking a very expansive view of executive power in the Marbury v. Madison case, and of federal power with respect to the Louisiana purchase).
I also think its a huge mistake to lump Washington, Adams and Jefferson in the same category politically. Post 1783, I seriously doubt Washington/Adams shared much if any of the same beliefs as Jefferson. Though, in fairness, Jefferson's beliefs were quite changeable depending on what would personally benefit him most at any point in time. I think its somewhat appropriate that Bill Clinton's middle name is the same as the last name of our third president.
NC
Rember when we had a REAL President GC...sigh...I love that Man!
CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”
My whole life has been tail end of Reagan, Bush-Clinton-Bush: you guys are lucky. Funny thing though, I doubt Reagan would be as loved if he ran today-he's got more moderate positions than people remember.
Someone's got to punch the hippies.
striving to move the ball in a conservative direction.
When he negotiated (be it with democrats, foreign leaders, etc.), he actually got the other side to make concessions.
When is the last time Bush got the democrats to go along with anything?
Conservatives need a bully pulpit to get over the noise of the MSM.
With talk radio, the Internet, cable news, etc. Reagan would be even more conservative today in the sense that he could cut even better deals.
He moderated because Dem Congresses forced him to...His overriding concern was the Soviet Union and he compromised elsewhere to push the ball forward against the Reds. His speeches indicate a deeply Conservative man at his core
CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”
But he not only supported amnesty, he called it amnesty and was proud of it. He certainly did compromise on other things because his primary focus was to crush the Soviet Union. In addition, he gave the neo-conservative wing of the Party new life. The fact that it was framed as an evil empire, and that this was a struggle of freedom vs tyranny, along with American exceptionalism is one of the core beliefs of neo-conservatism, of whose foreign policy I still subscribe to. He was a SoCon as well no doubt, but it was not his focus as much as a victory for America and preserving American's image as a shinig city on a hill and a beacon of light and freedom to the modern world. As a Fiscal Conservative though and on judges and federalism, his conservatism was a bit lacking.
Someone's got to punch the hippies.
Don't let the revisionist media mislead you. Ask any of us old farts that were there for it.
He agreed to amnesty only because Congress wouldn't agree to border security without it. They reneged on the deal, but that's not a surprise to you is it?
He gets blamed for a lot of spending during his time in office, but it was the fault of Congress. If I remember correctly, there was only one budget passed in his eight years of office. Congress only worked with continuing resolutions for all other spending.
Additionally, in order to get military spending, he had to sign bills that had other crap that Congress put in there, even though he protested loudly. At least once he vetoed a bill because of pork and it only had a relative handful of projects in it.
He was a rock on Federalism and judges. He weakened after Bork and took Kennedy, but you should have seen the media he had to deal with. They were completely unrestrained by the internet or any other check on their deception. And the American public were just as gullible as they are now, the only difference was that there was no way to get any other details outside the MSM filter.
Virtually no one had cable TV, and I don't think there was even a CNN. Only CBS, NBC and ABC. And they were worse then than they are now.
Reagan was a *remarkable* man, President, and conservative.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
I'd appreciate you doing without the argumentum ad hominem of "Da comrade".
If you have something rational to contribute please do, otherwise please take it somewhere else.
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
Most of what you have up there is not incompatible with Conservatism. Some seem contradictory. For example, I'd love to see how you square these two together;
- A commitment to fiscal prudence and limited government;
- A recognition that government does have a basic social responsibility to help those in need;
Other questions include; when you say "living breathing document" are you saying that you are in favor of the sort of judicial philosophy that produced Dred Scott, Plessy, Roe and Kelo? I ask because it's judges that claim to adhere to the "living constitution" philosophy that gave us those decisions.
Other questions are; what are your views, as a moderate, on racial preferences i.e. "Affirmative Action" and how does it reflect on your belief in "Diversity?" Should the Government be involved in ensuring "Diversity?"
If you get away from pure theory you realize that if and when you have a pure (or nearly pure capitalist system) then there are always a few who fall through the cracks and though whatever circumstances they become hard cases. And we all know that hard cases make bad law.
So I believe that a limited social safety net is indispensable because without it you get a hew and cry from the media and demogogues against greed and callousness.
In other words it serves as an inoculation of weakened socialism so that you don't catch the real thing.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
I believe that a limited social safety net is indispensable because without it you get a hew and cry from the media and demogogues against greed and callousness.
That is what's gotten us where we are now...it's a camel's nose under the tent!
CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”
Other questions include; when you say "living breathing document" are you saying that you are in favor of the sort of judicial philosophy that produced Dred Scott, Plessy, Roe and Kelo? I ask because it's judges that claim to adhere to the "living constitution" philosophy that gave us those decisions.
Don't forget CFR
CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”
Brown v Board of Education was pretty good and overturned a system that was evil.
Miranda v. Arizona was pretty good at protecting our Constitutional rights.
The list is long, and in some cases the rulings on the constitution has been to some extent based on our society evolving, which makes the Constitution a bit of a living document as the framers could not imagine everything that has transpired over the last 200+ years.
I prefer the approach to looking at the Constitution of Chief Justice Roberts of Justice Scalia to be truthful.
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
notice you are speechless re the living mortgage.
how about this. How about a living constitution that allows 5 lawyers to reinterpret your diversity plank? Huh!
So that what you mean by diversity can mean what 5 lawyers want it to mean in 20 years?
not cool eh?
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
Laws are written to say what they mean...
The Constitution was written to mean what it said.
There are proper ways to enact laws or amend the Constitution and a Judge that has the power to throw it all out the windo because the "Constitution is a living document" subject to an over reaching judiciary is a dangerous thing to life and liberty!
CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”
Did you vote for Slick Willy Steve?
Cmon...you can admit it!
CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”
That a judge could later decide it was in the best interests of the common good for "equal protection" that your home be given to others?
Didn't think so.
The Constitution is a contract between we the people and the government. Words have to mean what they mean so the law can be counted on. that was the miracle at philly.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
game,
You can do better. Tell me please that there is a law that goes with that straw man you are trying to construct? There is some new codicils of contract law that allows it perchance?
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
to the 14th amendment
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
That's the best response to the 'living constitution' nonsense I've ever read.
---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.
adequately compensated!
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
the balkans. The people that have elevated diversity and tolerance as positive goods are the most intolerant and the most non-diverse with respect to significant diversity of thought than any group of people in history.
lukewarm spue
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
game
Yes diversity can be misused, what would you rather see be a conservative position in it's place?
I would point out that Barry Goldwater even in his early days was a pretty strong defender of diversity and standing up for rights of minorities.
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
game
The problem with that standard is how do you measure it? Is it you are member of this exclusive golf club, or that fraternal organization or graduated from this school or that.
How do you quantify the content of character, who shall we empower with Solomon like powers to decide?
While I will grant you diversity and madness in the name of diversity is pure folly, I don't know what works better.
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
equivalent measure of pigmentation and genitalia. Eye color?
The meritocracy has produced the best results for the poor in world history...it seems the right to keep the fruits of one's labor is quite fetching...
But is your goal that of the french revolution and marx? equality
rather than liberty
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
game
I'll settle for a fair game and level playing field.
I do have a bias here, I was an offering of the White power elite of my town to the alter of desegregation and forced busing in the 70's in the Deep South. My small area of town which happened to be mostly military kids was designated the official white kids that had to be supplied to racially "balance" school enrollment plan that protected the rest of the white kids in town from being bussed. I'm still quite bitter about the whole deal, but have learned to look beyond my bitterness on the diversity question.
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
cured
white guilt is a bore
esp with gas prices what they are
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
You are bitter about the forced busing that was imposed on your area when you were a kid in order to diversify the schools and give Blacks and the less fortunate a better opportunity...But you somehow gain in stature when you would impose the same unfair regime on other unfortunate souls who get caught up in the machinations of the diversity Police?
How big of you!
CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”
How do you quantify the content of character, who shall we empower with Solomon like powers to decide?
So you would have Government decide?
You seriously scare me Steve!
CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”
Assume your looking at a mixed group of kids. Two are black, two are hispanic, and two are white. Their names are Jamal, Michael, Pedro, Juan, Jack and Bill. A "diversity" indoctrinated liberal sees them as two black kids, two hispanic kids and two white kids. Based on their race based theories of social gobbletygook, they see them not as individuals but as group members. A conservative sees them as Jamal, Michael, Pedro, Juan, Jack and Bill. The conservative IS the more diverse, because he sees each child as a unique individual with unique talents and abilities that can only be tapped into by the individual when he realizes he has talent on loan from God.
Tim Schieferecke
what would you rather see be a conservative position in it's place?
How about a return to the concept of equal justice under the law?
CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”
every part of our culture. We are a longer way from the Color Blind society now than we were in M L King's day.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
people were in need of liberty and we were bequeathed same via the Constitution. Freedom delivers the best results in needs being met. Government can't love. It can provide jobs to people that are dependant on victim dependants.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
agenda?
you said:
"A belief that God and religion have a very important place in America -- at the dinner table and in churches, temples, and mosques. But it should never be used by politicians to advance a narrow moral agenda;"
So only secular arguments are allowed in the public square to advance agendas, i.e. impose one's beliefs on others?
You are incoherent.
Not to mention at odds with the Founders, the abolitionists, MLK, every president we ever had, and all of American history.
Amazing you haven't moved to Cuba, a very diverse nation.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
game,
Read what you want into what I have said, but I'll stick with what Jefferson said in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802.
"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state."
Works for me.
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
from the state religion of Connecticut. He refused. Explaining that the wall prevented the federal government from interfering in state affairs, as the First Amendment only applied to Congress and the creation of a National religion.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
game
You just made my point. Jefferson rejected the insertion of Federal powers into what was essentially a state matter of religion.
De facto endorsement of a wall at the Federal level between church and state.
There is an argument to be made over a Federalist point of view over what sort of object religious activity should be allowed in schools and other places based on the will of the people made through votes at the local and state law level, but that's not the argument being made for the most part by you or others.
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
OK Steve...let's say this post is right...which I don't concede.
Jefferson rejected the insertion of Federal powers into what was essentially a state matter of religion.
Doesn't it stand that he would have opposed the Federal interference of the SCOTUS in state matters by banning Prayer, Bible Study, etc from public Schools...
And wouldn't he have opposed the Federal imposition via the SCOTUS of the speech codes and censorship of anything having to do with God or Jesus Christ from our public places?
No Sir...We do not make your point...YOU make ours!
CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
game,
I'm pretty happy here in America, a land of both freedom of and from religion, unlike many of the theocratic states in the the Middle East. If you wish to advocate for the creation of a theocratic nation that is your choice to advocate for it, again I must respectfully disagree.
______________________________________
Freedom of and FROM religion
judges of the anti-theist religion, 5 judges
Christians of the American persuasion produced the free nation you won't leave.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
game
So in your view if you're not of a Christian persuasion you have no rights, no claim to your slice of the American pie? Is there a specific denomination that you must belong to in the Christian faith to claim that slice of the free nation of which you speak?
Jews, Muslims, Agnostics, and yes Atheists had no part in producing this free nation, is that your story?
By the way, that was a bit of pointed stick I am poking at you...I and am going to try real hard to quit poking you back at you....must try harder...LOL.
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
Steve...Nobody is saying you have to be in any religion. We're saying you have no right nor does the Supreme court to restrict our religion or our right to promote and speak about our religion in the public square. There is no right for you or anyone else to tell me I have to remain silent about my faith because it will make you uncomfortable...
The only theocracy we have in America is an anti Christian secularistic/Atheistic theocracy forced upon us by 5 Supreme Court Justices!
CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”
freedom from religion but that is not the case, we are free to practice religion it was not mean't to be taken away from the public square which liberal justices and the ACLU have done piece by piece for the last 50 odd years...so the "not" portion of my signature is indicitive of that.....this country was founded on Judeo-Christian values....it was those values and morals that kept the country upright as it grew....the lacking of these values in a large segment of our society have brought us to the brink of European values and the pullback from that travesty was the takeover of the Congress by Republicans.....this country is now more conservative...maybe not as religious but the values are back.
Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion
Jaded
I agree with you and think that the courts have gone too far in creating a religion free zone in the name of protection from some dubious "hurt" by observation of same.
But at the same time, you are wrong (maybe a miss read of you) in that any law that is exclusionary of other religions from being given access to that same public square in equal measure is wrong. Most courts recently are finding preferential treatment of one religion over another is wrong, and I applaud some return to sanity.
A recent case in Ft. Lauderdale, if memory serves me right, highlight religious discrimination by of all things Jewish folks on a city council. They allowed Jewish religious symbols in the public square, but refused equal treatment for Christian groups.
I'm all for opening up the public square to religion, but make it open for all legitimate expressions of peoples faith at equal measure.
You don't have a problem with that do you?
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
square...and I hope when Bill O'Reilly is doing his Christmas shows that really show how often Christianity is being taken away from the very day that is theirs you will be up in arms with me:-)
By the way my tag line is non-demoninational....it is for all religions!
Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion
Jaded
Some of this stuff is just stupid.
Another case was in the Minneapolis airport last year. Jewish groups questioned, nicely matter of fact, if they could have a space to put up some decorations for their holiday, airport staff freaked and pulled the Christmas trees and other decorations.
The sad part here was the the Jewish folks had no problem with the Christmas stuff, they just wanted and asked nicely to have access. The good thing was that no nut jobs from ether side of the argument made the problem worse than it was by engaging ether the ACLU or some other group or some Red Meat radio personality of Left or the Right. The people involved, all of good faith, sat down worked it out and both religious groups, and later Muslim I think were allowed space.
I suppose you could call that being "moderate"....hmmmm.
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
for every slight you find for a Jew or a Muslim I could find you one where the creche is kept out of a Christmas display....which by the way is totally nuts....I again state I want all religions to have the public square.
Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion
I'm ambivalent on that, about the only problem is the old who decides question.
I don't want government deciding it, they have no business in the topic, but perhaps some local level review by local control, the old community standards rule..but again I don't think I care one way or the other.
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
For that to happen you have to get the SCOTUS to let go and let local governments do what they will...good luck with that one
CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”
imposing their will. The first amendment said CONGRESS shall make no law...
i am willing to fight these battles out with free speech and majority rule at the local level
or via state constitutions
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
game
I oppose people not talking to each other as decent fellow human beings, at least without getting a bunch of lawyers involved. Most people at the local level can work this stuff out, it's only outsiders (mostly lawyers of all ilk) gumming up the works.
Heck if there's a question about what should or should not be allowed, put it on the local ballot, I like direct Democracy.
Did I mention that I really like the 10th amendment, and it does cut both ways.
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
Just pass a law to reduce the number of lawyers in country by half, that'd achieve the same thing.
Sense there's so many lawyers here on RS and as editors....I kid I kid.
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
Heck if there's a question about what should or should not be allowed, put it on the local ballot, I like direct Democracy.
Did I mention that I really like the 10th amendment, and it does cut both ways.
Finally you say something I can agree with Steve...
CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”
And McCain did it anyway. Boy we are screwed for at least the next 4 years..(if he wins) and 8 if he doesnt....
now, head back in the sand
Did you have to bring McCain into this???
Just when I was in a good mood you had to remind me what we're facing...
BBBAAAAHHHH
CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”
State your proof that America is a place of freedom FROMreligion!
You have no more right to be free of references to God in the public square than I do to be free of crazy rantings from fools at Daily Kos, or on Cable news networks etc.
There is NO freedom FROM religion anywhere except in the heads of Liberal Justices bent on imposing their minority views upon the rest of the country!
CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”
that our founders endured to save us from this rubbish
thank you George, John, and Alexander
and that one man with courage below
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
A Conservative take on the Commu..er Moderate Manifesto:
A passion for civil liberties;
Good start…don’t we all have a passion for civil liberlies? To bad our “Moderate” nominee doesn’t have a passion for free speech!
A disdain for conformity and suspicion of authority;
Slight problem here..a disdain for conformity? A suspicion of authority? Most moderates I know insist on conformity to their minority positions within the Republican party. I would add many approach an authoritarian absolutism that nothing is absolute.
A belief that the Constitution is a living, breathing document with timeless values that must be made relevant in a modern age;
This sounds like the liberal…not moderate…or Conservative assertion that there are “vague penumbras and emanations of the government and the judiciary" contained in the Constitution which stuck us with the McCain Feingold law, and as Martin pointed, out Dred Scott, Plessy, Roe and Kelo. I think this would fit right into the DNC Plank without a passing whimper from the Kossites over there!
A commitment to protect the environment and not engage in mindless exploitation of the nation's natural beauty. A spirited case must be made for reusable energy sources like solar power. Modern technology provides many options before the earth is harshly, brutally, and needlessly pillaged.
Was this taken from Greenpiece of ELF? “before the earth is harshly, brutally, and needlessly pillaged.” Give me a break…Bet this came from Gore’s Earth in the Balance, it would certainly fit well within its pages!
A strong belief that diversity -- gender, racial, social, sexual, ethnic, and religious -- should be celebrated because it gives the United States moral strength. Diversity -- in the long-term, encourages respect, understanding, and a greater sense of community;
Does this include quotas and race baiting. This had to be taken right out of the Rainbow Push founding documents and has Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton’s race pimping handwriting all over it!
A commitment to fiscal prudence and limited government;
OK…I can go along with this one but I don’t see how this squares with the following two statements.
A recognition that government does have a basic social responsibility to help those in need;
The belief that the Federal Government has a “social responsibility to help those in need” led to the New Deal and the Great Society. Again sounds more Liberal than anything to me!
A belief that the nation does have international responsibilities;
I assume that this means we should have an unquestioning fealty to the UN and other “International” bodies. Of course this means that we need to foot the bill for the UN’s wastefulness and inefficiency as well as carry the wait for NATO and provide the defense for the EU.
A belief that God and religion have a very important place in America -- at the dinner table and in churches, temples, and mosques. But it should never be used by politicians to advance a narrow moral agenda;
I’ve debated you about this to know you believe this means every mention of God and his influence on the Founders and the history of this country must be snuffed out of all public mention and that it’s perfectly fine to have the IRS threatening Pastors across this nation for what they say from the pulpit…never mind the above assertion that so called moderates are passionate about civil liberties…I guess that’s true…they’re passionate about their own and nobody else's!
A belief that the national government should be used in a limited manner to advance the common good;
Again inconsistent with “A commitment to fiscal prudence and limited government” but don’t ever confuse a “Moderate” with anything like consistency!
A commitment never to put party above country;
I have no problem here
A responsibility to publicly criticize those who call themselves Republican when the situation merits.
“When the situation merits” apparently means at every opportunity and more urgently when Republicans are engaged in battle!
Moderate/Progressives have a duty
“Progressive” is a term that used to be used by Socialists/Comunists to describe themselves which has been taken up most recently by the most liberal portions of the Democrat Party.
As for the following:
a duty to vote against the party line when it doesn't serve the greater good. Doing so doesn't make them less Republican;
They’re not less Republican…they just get to hold a hammer over the rest of the Party's head making us all wonder when they will hit us over the head again when we most need help beating our enemies.
it demonstrates that they have the honor, political courage, and intellectual honesty to put nation above party
I would add that they have the arrogance to believe they have a monopoly on the judgment required to decide what’s required to put Nation above Party and the despicable belief that anyone who disagrees with them is doing so for selfish reasons other than a belief that what they do is for the good of the country!
CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”
ace
You've shown in your response that you choose to not paint a positive conservative point of view, nope you painted a "what's wrong" picture with what moderates think.
You're not for anything that I can see, your mostly against things. In my experience, it's not hard to be against things and tell everyone what's wrong, the challenge is creating and advocating a strong and positive conservative position.
I honestly think that's part of what's wrong with the Republican brand right now. Republicans seem to be against a lot of things, and in favor of very few positive things. No more "Morning in America" it would seem.
Your last comment about arrogance obviously cuts both ways doesn't it? It seems to me that moderates are willing to say we don't know, hard Right Conservatives not so much from what I can tell.
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
Your last comment about arrogance obviously cuts both ways doesn't it? It seems to me that moderates are willing to say we don't know, hard Right Conservatives not so much from what I can tell.
You're absolutely right Steve...I knew the correlation could be drawn back to me. Obviously I believe I'm right or I wouldn't be in the arena...the difference is I haven't joined a Party which according to your post you don't have much in common with...and insist that the majority of the Party has to do things your way!
CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”
ace
That's where you've gone wrong again. You seem to ascribe your views to the majority view of the Republican party, I'm not so sure.
Your views are reflective of the base of the party for sure, but the Republican brand is not a monolithic set of views. At best the Republican party is a confederation of views.
Frankly the recent dominance, some would call it bus driving, of the Republican party by social conservatives is fairly new, say the last 7 years.
If you go back and look as recently as the mid 90's, the Contract with America was not a product of social conservative thinking, and in my view the last time this party was really selling itself well. Before you jump there, I'm not claiming that Newt and Co were not concerned about social issues, they were, but they didn't seem to have the same fixation on social issues that seems to be the mission statement of the Republican party and brand today.
Your claim of having more in common with the views of the Republican party than the average bear rings a bit hollow, I think the Primary just proved that.
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
First off I didn't mention SoCon Issues, that's your boogy man....second...I keep telling everyone...if you want to know what the Majority of Republicans think...read the platform since it is built and ratified from the bottom up!
I know I'm with the Majority because I've read it...and I've helped write parts of it!
CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”
I alluded to my positive take on Conservatism...by mentioning the Constitution. If you want to know what I think about what Conservatism is read the founders and their take on natural law. Read what they say about the interrelation between Religion and Government. Read the Constitution as it was written...BTW, when I say the Constitution I mean the whole thing, not just the Bill of rights. Read the Declaration of Independence. Read Washington's farewell address. Read Ronald Reagan's Rendezvous with destiny. Read Adam Smith and the Wealth of Nations. Read Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman.
Jefferson said "I pledge upon the alter of almighty God eternal hostility over the mind of man!"
I live by that creed!
As for your Moderate Manifesto, aside from the platitudes about fiscal prudence and limited government...what would the Democrats disagree with...and I don't see anything a Conservative would agree with!
CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”
revealed "moderate" for what it is
liberal
as in
failed liberal policies and principles
tried and failed
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
You rock GC
CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”
I didn't catch that the first time through. That last thing we need is to have a bunch of communists voting for Republicans:) Nothing personal against SteveLA, though, I know he isn't a communist, though. Moderate seems a decent definition for him.
That list would go over without a hitch at DKos, although they might balk at the idea that religion has any place in society. I consider that definition to be the sanitized list of liberal characteristics. It doesn't sound too bad just looking quickly at it, but it allows for a living Constitution which should be anathema to any Republican, continuation of a purposeful racial and ethnic divide, and opportunity for a large government to take care of problems. Those don't sound moderate to me, but pretty much liberalism in a nutshell.
A Conservative take on the Commu..er Moderate Manifesto:
See when you start being insluting, you lose the high ground and your argument becomes moot. With just that one line, you broke Rules 2 through 4 of only four rules here on RedState. If you want to be insulting and personal, go to the DailyKOS. Maybe there they will listen to your insulting dibble.
You need to read a lot more carefully. The "Moderate Manifesto" posted above could have been written by the American Communist Party with just a few tweaks and noone would have thought it out of place.
Apparently you can't tell the difference between debating an argument (if you read again maybe you will see that it was the manifesto he was "insulting") and personal insults.
Your tone however was insulting and your retort not very imaginative. I give you an E for effort.
But I really don't see anything moderate about what Steve posted...it's pretty liberal down the line!
CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”
The truth of the matter is that "moderate" is a relative term, and its meaning depends on the person using it. It is not helpful to use the term outside of a specific law proposal.
People are wasting their words describing people or even broad policy areas (such as "social" or "economic") as "moderate." For many, it could just mean not advocating the death penalty for certain crimes or not advocating a totalitarian dictatorship. By some people's definitions, 99.9% of the nation would be "moderate."
I would guess most people, like McCain, are neither moderate, liberal, nor conservative but some combination of three depending on the specific issue. And the importance of the issue is what should drive votes.
It's a TOTALLY meaningless term in most cases, and people would be better served trying to detail their views in terms of what specific policies and/or actions they favor and/or oppose.
difference between libs and cons, thus solving nothing and making no one responsible for failure, thus depriving americans of evaluating whether lib or con policies work.
2 exceptions
late 70s policies of libs failed
80s policies of cons worked
the lesson cons should drive home
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
That's one defintion. But all too often we just get three or more groups that can't agree instead of just two. I'm reminded of many Supreme Court decisions showing that. I think we also saw that in the Senate immigration bill last year. Moderation in moderation can sometimes help where it is possible. But that depends on the issue. The broader the issue is ("comprehensive" immigration reform, which questions for the Supreme Court to address), the more divisions that result.
In addition, on some issues, we have to deal with the question of "moderate" with respect to what? Conservatives and liberals sometimes disagree on how far to go among their own groups.
Then apparently, according to some, "moderate" can now also mean conservative on one set of issues and liberal on a whole other set of unrelated issues. Perhaps they are still moderate on others. While that may be where most people (or a plurality of them) are, that's NOT my idea of a moderate, a liberal, or a conservative.
So this leaves too much confusion.
gridlock
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
And yet again this thread shows that you can't have a discussion without name calling (not you Martin, the comments). I should probably give up on this silly "civil" and "polite" thing....
___________________________________
Just like PayPal, except it's free and a $25 bonus to sign up!
I posted a "Plea for civility" a couple of months ago, and it went nowhere. There are certain individuals here who don't know how to express themselves without resorting to insults and condescension.
From now own, I propose that any such postings receive a standard response from other posters and that they do NOT receive any kind of serious response. Perhaps something like this:
BOZO
The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
n/t
"Face it, we aren't going to win. I'd start buying gold and hiding cash under my mattress in preparation for the ultra Dem. Congress and the ObamaMessiah and Princess Pouty Face's Socialist! Paradise!".....Illinidiva
I have 60% high frequency hearing loss from too many loud engines and augers resulting from working on the farm, so I can't hear them anyway. Maybe that's why I can't understand their points of view. It just sounds like gobbletygook and makes no sense.
Tim Schieferecke
Look, we get the joke. Conservatives beat up moderates for being weak-knee'd, moderates point at the neanderthals on the right, blah, blah, blah.
But this back and forth crap (I promise, I could post this a dozen times in this thread with a number of commenters) is going to do one thing and one thing only: ensure the worst president we've ever seen.
Coalition politics is that of addition. Period.
So knock off the "castrati" garbage. You can't win without those moderates. think on that for a day and see if it changes your approach.
And if I hear one more, "well, winning with John McCain isn't worth winning at all because of X principle or Y principle" - you can go sit in the corner with Howard Phillips, because you'll have as much chance to actually advocate for that principle you so dearly hold.
Eye on the prize: beating a hard-left Democrat. Not kicking someone you could share a pint with.
instead of divides. Very few people are true moderates in the middle of the road sense. Our presidential candidate (& I pray our next president) John McCain tends overall to the conservative side, just not as conservative as some. We can disagree on various issues to varying degrees; however, we have unifying themes that are important - such as strong national defense, economic freedom & low taxes, responsible spending, & individual liberty - to name a few. Let us focus on these issues, & resist the attempts that will come from the democrats & MSM to highlight that which divides us. As said, we can disagree on issues - if amensty comes up again, I'll be working against it regardless of who occupies the White House - however let's push the common uniting themes & principles.
Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion