Independent Conservative Dilemma
with such little hope for the GOP, what difference does Fred make?
By haystack Posted in 2008 — Comments (30) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
[qualifier-having resigned from the GOP a year ago, I am now a registered Independent, so move on if you plan to accuse me of being a Thompsonbot-this is NOT about Thompson the man]
Ok, so here we are, in the heat of the pre-pre-2008 election campaign. What do we have exactly?
Well, on the Left there are the compulsory 2 tiers of Presidential hopefuls-The Empress Clinton, and what's his name Obama something, and on the next rung down we have the Breck girl, and a few other raving lunatics; railing because they seem to wish you would vote for them to be President because they want you to know they'd impeach the one we already have.
On the right we have similar circumstance; two rungs on the ladder of Presidential aspiration. Top tier has a 3-way squabble, and the second one down about the same, and no admitted ideological persuasions or tendencies so as to not isolate those who ALSO don't "believe" in anything.
Sigh. What is an Independent Conservative to do NOW exactly?
More below the fold...
There is only a distinction, by nuance, between the Left's candidates - they all want to take CARE of you, they don't want our Soldiers to fight to defend us if it means any of them actually DIE in the doing of it, and they want you to give them all your money so they can make everyone else feel as well off as you. Check. Oh wait, I almost forgot, they want you to know you can do whatever you want to unborn children, and they want everyone here illegally to be made "legal" so we can put this ugly bigoted mess behind us once and for all as a Nation.
Oh, and by the way, if there's any money left over, they REALLY want to knock the Globe's temperature down a couple degrees...that is really really really important you see...it's for the children.
They don't call themselves Liberals or Socialists or any other term of "endearment" settling instead for just trying to convince you that they have no "ideology" themselves, they simply believe in YOU. And that Constitution thingy? Simply guidelines and rules of thumb-don't worry, they wont let THAT old thing get in the way of you doing just whatever the heck it is you want.
So why, exactly do you even care at this point? Each of the thousand or so would-be Presidential aspirants care more about themselves than they do about any of you anyway...so why should you care about them until November 2008 when all you're going to do is hold your nose and pull, or hold your hands and sit?
My favorite beer coozy, nearly disintegrated with abuse since November, says it all:
I am experienced enough to recognize the mistakes I'll make again
And how sad is it that we find ourselves in this same reality, politically, today? The political divide, while wide and deep, has long since forgotten ideology in my opinion. No longer do we hear much about the "why" behind an empty campaign promise. The "what" is about the best our Political heroes can muster, and even then, the sweet, hollow words of nothingness are vague and ambiguous.
Imagine Hillary telling you that she wants to raise taxes on the backs of the rich and re-distribute those monies to the poor "because it brings us closer to the socialism she espouses in her own belief system of governance." And, on the right, imagine Rudy suggesting that while he hates abortion personally, he "believes womens' choice rights outweigh 'right to life' rights because it is a conservative idea that needs to be respected in the name of a non-intrusive Government."
So much for Principled Statesmanship.
The term Conservatism seems, at its core, problematic to Republicans. I think most would agree that there is a clear distinction between "Conservative" and "Republican" these days; across the spectrum of political pursuits what matters is which of the two parties is in control more than what the representatives of "we the people" stand for in our stead.
There have been repeated failures at trying to actually define "Conservatism" in the first place. Consider Terence Jeffrey's attempt at listing the 10 basic "Principles of Conservatism" which he lists as:
God's Law Governs Nations as Well as Men
Life Is the First God-Given Right
Marriage and Family Come Before the State and Deserve Its Protection
Freedom of Conscience Is the Soul of Liberty
Private Property Is the Servant of Freedom
Government Dependency Is the Seed of Tyranny
The Constitution Means What It Says
Taxes Are Justified Only to Fund Necessary Government Spending
National Defense Is Just That
We Should Strive to Give Our Children a Better Country
A man named Russell Kirk took his own whack at a list of ten:
First, the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order
Second, the conservative adheres to custom, convention, and continuity
Third, conservatives believe in what may be called the principle of prescription
Fourth, conservatives are guided by their principle of prudence
Fifth, conservatives pay attention to the principle of variety
Sixth, conservatives are chastened by their principle of imperfectability
Seventh, conservatives are persuaded that freedom and property are closely linked
Eighth, conservatives uphold voluntary community, quite as they oppose involuntary collectivism
Ninth, the conservative perceives the need for prudent restraints upon power and upon human passions
Tenth, the thinking conservative understands that permanence and change must be recognized and reconciled in a vigorous society
Iron Lady Thatcher had her opinions, Wikipedia has a fair collection of names such as Hobbes, Locke, Burke, Cicero, and even Confucius, and interestingly, even the French had an idea about Conservatism back a couple hundred years.
We all have an opinion, and our own list; heck-I even did one of my OWN of sorts, a while back for my own sanity-but in spite of all this we can't seem to coalesce around SOME modicum of compromise that would have us actually MAKE the Government behave more in accordance with even the most basic of these varied opinions. We have either forgotten what it means, or we have decided it is irrelevant in today's political climate; winning on principle and ideology has gone out, like the baby, with the bathwater.
Standing in the field of dreams of our would-be Presidents, each wanders from one or more of the principles we might put under the "Conservative tent" and that is to be expected, I suppose. But each of the declared Republican candidates also call themselves "Conservative" in spite of the fact that they drift (in some cases) quite far from even the most fundamental tenets of the "philosophy" of it.
McCain believes free-speech is secondary to Government intrusion in preventing one of the greatest sins of man - corruption. Giuliani believes privacy (and "allegedly" the blocking of Governmental intrusion into the womb) is of a higher order than the killing of an unborn life. And Romney believes, well, I'm not sure exactly...he keeps changing his mind.
The issue with the election in '08 SHOULD come down to the National dialog-what we will be concerning ourselves with. Will it be Liberalism versus Conservatism? Likely not.
Likely it will be about Bush is bad, Democrat X is less so. It may be about Iraq, or corruption (mine is good, yours is bad), or it may be about Social Security or Universal Health Care. But whatever it is, you can be sure, the current Republican candidates aren't talking about National "philosophy." There will be no talk of "family values", or "Patriotism" (as something we long to have BACK), nor will there be ANY discussion about term limits and Government being humbled by the service the American people entrust them (and our very lives) with.
So, what is an Independent Conservative to do exactly? I am certainly not represented in the "National dialog" because what I care about are these issues and whether Conservatism will solve them or Liberalism will.
Will Conservatism secure our borders and hold everyone in this country accountable to the written law? Or will Liberalism?
Will Conservatism keep the Government from being a burden to me? Or will Liberalism?
Will Conservatism reduce the money I am charged by the Government for the "privilege" of being here and the honor of supporting those who choose NOT to take care of themselves and their families? Or will Liberalism?
Will Conservatism respect my property, and recognize that it is MINE to do with as I choose without the pre-emptive seizure of said property if it is deemed MORE valuable to the Government? Or will Liberalism?
Will Conservatism recognize, respect, and honor my passion for my God and my church community, and understand that I have the God-given ability to express it, share it, and talk about it openly while those with differing opinions do, also, likewise? Or will Liberalism?
Will Conservatism recognize murder, within the womb and without, for what it is and hold those that commit murder to an equal set of standards? Or will Liberalism?
I could go on, but my list, as suggested, is my own. And, while the self-aggrandizement and pursuits of power and glory for its own sake continue unabated, what will I have to endure for the next two years? The shrill? The squeals? The vitriol? And each of these with none of the accompanying reality, and forethought, and facts?
There IS one non-candidate who HAS shown a willingness to at least bring this stuff up. And, for my part, I am less concerned at the moment with whether he wins than with what his entry into the race will bring to MY ears; a discussion about Conservatism and first principles. There's THAT at least.
Consider these words from a recent speech at CNP:
For Americans, these [first principles] are found in the Constitution and the > Declaration of Independence. They include a recognition of God and the fact there are certain rights that come from Him and not the government. They are based upon a respect for the wisdom of the ages, and a belief that human beings are prone to err; that too much power must never rest in too few hands. The result is a system of checks and balances and a separation of powers that flow from our guiding documents and from the rule of law.
Finally, if we want to change or alter these concepts or any
provision in the Constitution, we are given a specific method to do that — by Constitutional Amendment.So how are we doing as a nation in upholding these first
principles? The answer is we could be doing better … a lot better.
For whatever Fred Thompson may or may NOT be, he is at least trying to engage our brains and not our hearts. And, given what the so-called "front-runners" have to say about values, beliefs, and "first principles", win or lose Fred...your input on the National dialog is SORELY needed.
I defy anyone running for office for '08 to TALK like this:
Our nation is based upon the proposition that our statutes, common law and the Constitution will not only be applied fairly between litigants, but will also be observed by the government. People will be able to rely upon the rules, usually long established, and their consistent application. This engenders respect for the law. It is a sad irony that a nation that is so dedicated to the rule of law is doing so much to undermine the respect for it.
Our founders established an independent federal judiciary to decide cases, not social policy. Yet more and more that is exactly what it is doing. Roe v. Wade is a classic example. And nowhere is it more apparent than with regard to the issue of church and state.
Many federal judges seem intent on eliminating God from the public schools and the public square in ways that would astound our founding fathers. We never know when a five to four Supreme Court decision will uphold them. They ignore the fact that the founders were protecting the church from the state and not the other way around. Instead of having the basic rules of society changed in the way clearly set forth in the Constitution by two-thirds votes of both Houses and by three-fourths of the states, the entire process is reversed by the stroke of a pen and supporters of the rule of law have the burden placed upon them, which is usually insurmountable.
We have always held our federal judiciary in high esteem, even at a time when most of our institutions are under assault. However, if judges continue to act like politicians they will get the respect currently given to politicians. It is already rapidly headed in that direction. The antidote for this, of course, is good judges. And presidents who know one when they see one.
[...]
I'm reminded of something my Daddy used to say: A man who walks around smiling all the time can't possibly know what's going on. However, I am optimistic. I think we all are. But as Americans, our optimism comes not from an analysis of how things are, but from our belief that we can change what we see for the better.We have road maps — at least two of them in fact — the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution — to guide us. How can we look at the world without thinking about inalienable rights, and doing everything necessary to protect our country? How can we think of fiscal policy or even health-care policy without remembering the limitations appropriately placed upon government and the importance of individual freedom?
This is a message that needs to be delivered. The people in this room have been delivering it for a long time. We must rededicate ourselves to this commitment and to the magnificent legacy we have been given.
Like I said before, I'm not all together concerned with whether Fred wins or loses, but before I get sent further out into the wilderness, I SURE would like to sit a while and have this discussion.
Given there isn't a Democrat alive that talks this way, I'll pull Republican in '08 no matter...but in the meantime, this is music to THIS Independent's ears.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Answering the Mitt as Pro-Lifer Question — Comments (29) »
Independent Conservative Dilemma 30 Comments (0 topical, 30 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
provide us with some links to transcripts where Ron Paul explains his disdain for this President and his decisions regarding the war on terror, and how he associates surrendering to terrorists with "first principles of conservatism" and failing that, enlighten us on how his Libertarianism is better than the Conservatism I have tried (apparently in vain) to spell out here.
haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).
I understand that some people adhere to the party line no matter what. But I have no respect for it.
Ron Paul adheres to the Constitution. A real conservative, not a fake Bush globosocialist "compassionate conservative", understands that that is primary.
By the way, Bush's War on Terror is liberty-destroying BS and I'm glad to have someone like Ron Paul in office fighting for my freedom. Bush himself decried the very sort of "nation-building" that he is engaged in now, back when he was first asking for our votes.
So quit your "surrender" canard. I can tell you are at no real risk of personally suffering a terrorist attack from the lightweight arguments you offer; the worst risk you run by backing these wrongheaded policies is perhaps a minor economic loss. Since it's my neck that's actually on the line, not yours, I'd appreciate if you'd learn something about terrorism and Islam and the principles of life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness that make America what it is before you toss more of my hard-earned money into this futile effort while doing nothing that actually lessens my risk of terrorism.
You want to fight a war on terror? Here's how:
1) Call out Islam for the murderous religion of savage barbarians that it is;
2) Control the borders;
3) Engage in a crash program of establishing American independence from Arab oil; and
4) Attack our enemies with overwhelming force until they unconditionally surrender.
If you can't bring yourself to back this program then you should leave the discussion so that adults can deal with serious issues without your interference.
I'm disgusted by all the people who are so blinded by the party line that they can't see how totally ineffective at actually combatting terrorism the administration's policies are.
I vote that the consideration of anti-terrorist policies be restricted to those of us who have actually personally endured Islamic terrorism. The rest of you have no idea what you're talking about and haven't the incentive to take it any more seriously than just another political football. Pizza, anyone?
I survived the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center and also 9/11 by the grace of God. Nearly lost both my mother and sister in 9/11, as well, and got to smell the mixture of incinerated human flesh and aluminum for three weeks afterwards. I live just outside DC; my family is in NYC. I've had plenty of incentive to be thinking about this far far longer than you have. This administration is not doing anything that will substantially reduce my risk of suffering another terrorist attack.
Play your frivolous games with someone else's life, not mine.
If you like, I can bring forward an abundance of links to prove I am well aligned with your numbers 1-4. You just might want to back off the personal affrontery, or you'll get it back in spades...and you can shove all your mealy mouthed nonsense about what I do and don't understand about the risks here and that foolishness about toeing the party line.
Had you read the whole of this piece, you might have gleaned I am not a member of the party, and were you to do a little research, you'd find I have a fairly decent history of criticizing the President on more than one occasion.
That said, and with my respects to you and yours for what you have endured...this isn't just about YOU big fella...it's about me too...and quite a few million others around the world.
And that chump of yours, Ron Paul, would have us retreat and surrender and bow our heads in apology...he sure the hell wouldn't do numbers 1, 2, & 4...I live in Texas...I know his record and his rhetoric quite well. He is pandering to the moderate anti-war crowd...you must be familiar with them.
They're the coalition of the "Bush created Terrorists" club, and the "they'll stop blowing us and themselves up when Bush is gone and we leave the middle east" club...I'm just struggling to figure which club you're in.
haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).
Didn't realize that you were the author of the original piece.
Well then. Re-read your list of what defines a conservative and tell me which of those doesn't apply to Ron Paul. It is in fact an excellent description of what he has stood for for three decades, despite the Party frothing at the mouth to get rid of him, despite the legislative retaliation his district has suffered, despite the constant bribery that passes for a legislative process, despite all of the corrupting influences that saturate the Capitol.
For not being a member of the party, you seem to be quite sold on the party line on the WoT. Just because RP doesn't buy into the current lunacy that passes for national policy doesn't mean he wouldn't vigorously defend the nation. The record shows he did properly back retaliation after 9/11 in a legal, Constitutional, Declaration of War. If you are familiar with his rhetoric then you know it is a deception to equate his reasoning with that of the Code Pink crowd. He is not a doctrinnaire anti-war peace idolator, he is a stalwart defender of true meaning and fundamental human justice embodied in our nation's founding documents.
The man tells it like it is. He doesn't play games, and doesn't aim to deceive. I have every confidence that a person willing to stand by a true understanding of the Constitution will take every appropriate measure to defend this nation. For the rest of them - if they don't have the strength to stand up for the Constitution, how can I have any confidence that they have the strength to stand up to Islam? By his consistency over all these years, Ron Paul alone of all the candidates and potential candidates has demonstrated that he has the strength of character that we should require in any person aiming for the highest office in the land.
Thoughtomater, if you care so much about this issue, you should care enough to restrain youself and debate the issue in a tone that is most conducive to convincing others, and trash-talking is not it. I'm not even going to confront your positions and rationale, I just want to make that one point.
If you don't want me angry then don't you dare accuse me of supporting surrender.
I'm pretty pissed off at the calcified state of national debate on this. Democrats offer me dhimmitude, and Republicans offer me false hope that they hope to manipulate into personal enrichment.
I swear, if I hear another "Press 1 for English" while watching the Secretary of State hand yet more of my earnings to Arab terrorists, I don't know what I'll do.
I want real change, and I want it now. If the political class is not prepared to fulfill its duty in asserting the just and correct sovereignty of the United States then I am prepared to defend my own inalienable rights, even if I stand alone in this fight.
ok, I can see how associating you with "surrender" could tick you off. I would still suggest, however, that you respond in a tone most conducive to persuasion if that's your goal (and if you care deeply about the issue and think persuasion is possible, that should be your goal). You wrote "If you can't bring yourself to back this program then you should leave the discussion so that adults can deal with serious issues without your interference." Well, constraining emotion and reacting in the way that is most likely to accomplish your objective is the "adult" thing to do. In fact, that's a big part of what defines adulthood.
Better to just present counter-arguments in a civil tone.
Conservatism puts the responsibility with the individual and the family, along with the power to achieve their goals. Individuals and families define their own goals.
Liberalism puts the responsibility with society, along with the power to achieve its goals. Society defines the goals for its people.
Conservatism envisions a small federal government for the purpose of maintaining a military, securing the borders, regulating interState commerce, etc. (and stays out of our way where religion, speech, assembly, etc. are concerned.) The people of each State decide all other issues for themselves. If I like the political climate better in Texas than I do in California, then I move to Texas so I can live with like-minded people in the conditions I prefer.
I was born and raised in the North. My family has always lived in the North. But if the civil war was fought today I would be with the South. Not because I support slavery, but because the civil war shifted the power away from the States into the hands of the federal government. I'm tired of always having the boot of the federal government on the neck of the State.
I've always been a registered independent, but I've never voted for a Democrat because I don't want or need the government to be responsible for me.
Fred! is the only candidate(?) to adress federalism head-on with, what appears to be, a thoroughly developed agenda. He seems to be an honest-to-God Federalist!
It was a pleasure to see several of the candidates mention States rights during the last Republican debate, but they did it only in passing, or maybe as a dodge to avoid having to make a policy statement. But hey, whatever gets the job done. The MSM seems hostile toward federalism.
Federalism as the key Conservative value. Let the people of each State decide how much of a nanny their government is going to be.
haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).
haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).
I didn't mean to be insulting, but I'm pretty new here and I'm not familiar with the writers. Sorry.
Anyway, I hate to play favorites, but from what I've seen so far I prefer your direct and edgy style to most of the others. But you're all great!
haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).
It seems extremely slow, and about half hour ago I couldn't get to it at all.
Anyway, one more comment about federalism. It's a win/win for everyone. The people of Mass get what they want, AND, the people of Okla get what they want. In today's world, where even advertising is becoming more and more personalized, government should not be one-size-fits-all. Everyone can have what they want under federalism.
I believe true conservatism (and the views I hold) can be summed up in a single word: liberty.
Liberty means we have a right to keep the money we earn except to the extent that a very strong case can be made for the government confiscating it via taxes. I do not believe conservatives are (and I am not) purely fiscally libertarian -- I think most conservatives believe that taxpayers should ensure that poor children get an education, for example, and would not leave all the elderly completely on their own financially -- but, relative to a liberal view, conservatives believe in a great degree of financial liberty, freedom from government confiscation of property.
Liberty means our government should not saddle us with a national debt that gravely threatens our future standard of living and national security. And true fiscal conservatism is more than just demanding tax cuts under any and all circumstances; it means first and foremost, fiscal responsibility (i.e., prudent management of taxation relative to revenues), and within that constraint, a fight for low spending and low taxation.
Liberty means we must maintain a strong military and be willing to use it when our security and vital interests are in jeopardy, or to pre-empt such jeopardy when a sufficiently strong case can be made.
Liberty means the government has the responsibility to prohibit and prevent murder. Those who mistakenly argue that liberty is the justification for a pure pro-choice position (which, if pressed, many pro-choicers would not really hold -- just ask them if they think an abortion in the ninth month should be legal) are overlooking the fact that (1) government must prohibit homicide, (2) to do so it must define what is a person, (3) defining a person as post-birth is just as arbitrary as choosing any other point in the life of that organism, and therefore (4) government must determine what criteria for personhood are appropriate and how to apply those criteria, and impose restrictions on individuals accordingly with regard to abortion. The reason, if it isn't obvious, why a libertarian view does not imply a pro-choice position is because the embryo or fetus may be a person, deserving of liberty himself/herself (i.e., the right to life).
Liberty means free enterprise and free trade, not necessarily on in absolute, laissez-faire form (some regulations are beneficial), but in general. Regarding trade, government should not force consumers to pay higher prices to, in effect (or directly) subsidize domestic producers (i.e., transfer wealth from our pockets to their shareholders and employees), unless there is a very strong case for a broad public benefit.
Liberty means the government we pay for should not hire some people over others based on their level of skin pigmentation, nor should government pressure businesses and other organizations in the private sector to do so. Race-based affirmative action is obviously a violation of this principle (and is antithetical to MLK's call to judge people not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character).
Liberty means we are free to choose and exercise any religion (or non-religion) we prefer, free of intimidation from the state one way or another. The state should not prohibit organized expression of religious beliefs in public schools (e.g., Christmas plays), for example, but also should not write prayers to be led by teachers in the arguably coercive environment of a public elementary school classroom.
Liberty means freedom of expression with very few restrictions that can be justified on the grounds of public safety (not yelling "fire" in a crowded theater; not explicitly promoting or facilitating crimes; not promoting sedition). That is why flag-burning, as repugnant as it is, is and should be Constitutionally protected. When I see someone burning our flag I want to slug them as much as anyone does, but my offense doesn't justify denying some jerk his right to express his political beliefs. It makes no sense to deny freedom to protect a symbol of freedom (our most important freedom at that).
Liberty means equal rights and equal obligations among citizens. That is why I have a problem with the status of Puerto Rico (residents would be subject to any future military draft, yet have no voting representation in Congress and cannot vote in the presidential general election), and believe that they should be periodically offered (via binding plebiscite) the opportunity for statehood, with all the rights AND obligations it entails. That is also why I think gay couples should have the right to a status that is legally equivalent to marriage, even if a different name is used (and no, I'm not gay, nor am I even comfortable with homosexuality; I just don't see on what basis a couple with the same genitalia should not have the same right as a couple with different genitalia, and I don't see how tradition outweighs equal rights any more than I can see tradition as a justification for anti-miscegenation laws).
"prudent management of taxation relative to revenues" should read "prudent management of taxation relative to spending"
are you also willing to grant to adult individuals the right to eat/smoke/ingest what they want to on the grounds that we own our on selves? If not, what about the right to allow an individual and their doctor to use a relatively harmless and inexpensive herb instead of a product of the pharmaceutical industry?
Also, on another note, do you see it as a major issue the harm done to the consumer and taxpayer by government subsidies, and what do you think can be done about them?
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
Re: eat/smoke/ingest, yes, I believe individuals should generally have the liberty to make their own choices. Now the qualifications: If doing so has a strong tendency to impose a heavy cost on the rest of us (e.g., medical expenses), I'm ok in principle with "sin taxes" so that the consumers are, in effect, covering these costs. Another exception would be prohibition of particular heavy drugs that severely impair judgment if a case can be made that consumption creates a substantial public danger.
Re: herbs vs. FDA-approved medications, I'm for liberty, but I do think the government should regulate claims at least to the extent of requiring disclosure that the claims have not been FDA-approved and that they have not been substantiated by double-blind, controlled studies (the scientific standard).
Regarding subsidies, I think it's clear that I am generally opposed unless a very strong case can be made for a broad public good. As for getting rid of them, I think one big step in the right direction would be a large increase in the multiple of public matching funds for campaigns (e.g., $10 for every $1 raised privately), because the current system is essentially legal corruption through which particular industries and unions have disproportionate influence over who can mount a serious campaign, who wins, and how they vote or act once in office. For a few billion dollars of taxpayer investment every two years we could save (as taxpayers and consumers) many tens of billions of dollars every year by eliminating special-interest subsidies, import quotas, special tax breaks, etc.
I frankly don't care WHAT you eat/smoke/ingest.
Unless and until tobacco, alcohol, and sundry other forms of personal pleasure are ALSO banned (which, as a smoker and a drinker I would have to violate the law) the law allows for due process for crimes you might be guilty of whether they be because you are stupid or because you are under the influence of something...I am ok with that.
I smoked weed in high school and college-to suggest doing so now is some crime to American society is either hypocritical or just bad form.
Look-there are lots of things that are legal today that are bad for you. Making SOME illegal because of some faux moral authority while making others acceptable is just foolish.
Conservatism, at its core, expects personal responsibility and accountability. You sit on your back porch and burn one and no one is victimized or criminalized, then I guess it never happened. You pick a personal pursuit that infringes on MY personal freedoms, and we'll be fighting...and, as with the 2nd amendment, I might be shooting.
haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).
I agree for the most part, but in principle at least, I can see exceptions for very hard drugs that severely impair judgment to the extent that a user is much more likely to pose a serious physical threat to others, or highly addictive drugs such as crystal meth or crack that are highly likely to lead to high costs for the rest of us (in violent crime such as mugging and armed robbery to get drug money, medical treatment, etc.). How do you feel about that?
which we have done.
you prosecute violators, which we do.
While we do so with weed, the issue here is whether we find a sufficient roi on jailing people for 10 years for having a joint in their ashtray, at 35k per year per perp.
I say no
I hope you're not phishing here. the point is looking at those acts that are a threat to our society, versus those we might...in certain circles...consider bad form.
Keeping society intact, thriving, and growing is a first principle. Whether you choose to do something in the privacy of your own home that hurts no one but yourself...well, to wrap legislation around it for feel-good, empty pursuits, is not always in the taxpayer's or society at large's best interest.
I find many things reprehensible...should we jail everyone at such a price to the taxpayer if their only crime is to themselves and against our sensibilities? I think not.
Be careful what you ask for. We jail or punish deficient child-support payors for being late such that they have no hope of making good on their bill, and keep them in jail longer. Are the children better served? The greater society that has to pick up the slack through unemployment, food stamps, etc...are they better served?
haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).
I was not talking about marijuana. I'm with you on that. I just meant what I said at face value. And I think you're saying you agree on the prohibition of such hard drugs. Also, I agree with you that we should not ban drugs (or anything) simply because we have some moral objection if the act in question only harms that individual (if anyone at all). So it looks like we agree on the eat/drink/ingest question, right?
In what you've written here. I really hope Fred Thompson runs, and this is exactly the reason why!
If John McCain is the nominee, then the GOP deserves to lose. I always hated the talk in 2006 that republicans don't deserve our vote. I thought they did.
But John McCain, the nemesis of the GOP in the senate and Ted Kennedy's partner in crime.
Who the hell would vote for John McCain.............
To answer your question, I would -- and probably will -- vote for McCain.
What's do you find so objectionable about McCain? I can understand legitimate disagreement re: his campaign finance reform vis-a-vis the first amendment (although at least he has been trying to do something about our system of legal corruption, which is a lot more than most have done). Other than that, I see a guy who clearly has the most experience and insight for becoming a war president, believes in a strong defense and the will to use it when necessary, has a fairly solid record social conservative (unlike Rudy or Flip Romney), is as tough a fighter as there is against wasteful government spending, is a true fiscal conservative concerned with our mounting debt, had sensible reasons for opposing the Bush tax cuts, and has sensible concerns over climate change, and is trying to achieve (along with Bush) a practical solution that makes the best of a bad situation regarding illegal immigrants. What about that (or anything else) makes him the "nemesis of the GOP"?
Dealbreaker.
Legalizing 12 - 20 million illegal aliens then allowing them to import their families to the tune of tens of millions more, and then turning all of these people into voters will simply end any hope of anything resembling Conservatism in the USA.
Hispanic voters are very liberal. Pew Research found that even the minority of Hispanics that identify themselves as Republicans were more liberal than even white liberals when it came to taxes and size of government. Even the "conservative" Hispanics are more liberal than our white liberals!
And this "family values" demographic has a 47% illegitimacy rate - and rapidly climbing. That'll be great for when they're elligible for the dole, won't it?
And we want to allow them to vote in the tens of millions? WHY? Especially when we have no reason on earth to cause this to happen - they are here illegally. We owe them nothing.
Importing tens of millions of Democrat voters from a socialist country is not just a horrible idea, it will be the death of conservatism in our nation. That's why the democrats are so hot to trot for this - this seals their power for good, and turns the United States into just another Socialist state like in Europe in a generation.
And all for nothing.
There is no "big problem". If we merely enforced the laws we have now and add real tough employer sanctions for hiring illegals, after two or three years most of the illegals will have simply self-deported on their own. Without being able to get a job - the main reason they came here - they will simply have to go back to where they came from to survive.
That's it. That's all it would take to fix this problem. And to save the United States and Conservatism from a sure socialist future if we enact McCain's bill.
Just enforce the laws, and make the employer penalties tough. And that's it. There will be no more problem, or the problem will be far, far smaller, in very little time after doing these simple things.
So why on earth do anything different? Especially before we've even TRIED to enforce the laws we have now? Why write new ones when we haven't even tried the old ones?
This is why I'm against McCain, and will NEVER vote for him in a primary. Because I want to retain our free country for future generations.
Ron Paul better meets that definition of conservatism. Thompson has his virtues but also supported the blatantly unconstitutional McCain-Feingold, disqualifying him from any credible claim to be a defender of the Constitution or our freedom.