bang

[PAMFAM10]

I'm conflicted about whether or not to take that as a compliment.

I was looking for some kind of rebuttal to the argument presented in that article. Thus far, I have yet to hear one. For all these claims of "we need a true conservative" and "we haven't had a true conservative since Reagan" and "a true conservative would win these elections easily," I have yet to see the proof, and a lot of evidence supporting the contrary.

In the first place, we have had true conservatives since Reagan. Calling anyone in the Bush family anything less than a true conservative is a farce and an insult; the only arguably moderate things ever done in either Bush presidential administration were a tax hike done as part of a budget deal (that's called negotiation, and it used to be a necessary part of life in Washington) and TARP (which was, in my opinion, the government cleaning up a mess it spent three decades making, calling into question it's "non-conservative" nature). If you want to tally conservative actions versus non-conservative actions by either Bush while in office, the fact is the first column would vastly outweigh the second. In state politics, both Jeb and W. were conservative governors who represented their constituencies well while still managing to get bipartisan deals done.

Further, we've had plenty of "true conservatives" in the Republican presidential primaries. For the sake of argument, I'll remove Mitt and McCain from consideration. That leaves the likes of Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Mike Huckabee, and Michelle Bachmann, all of whom had considerable tea party support at various points during their campaigns. Now let me ask you, if they couldn't even win the Republican primaries in a primary system that strongly favors rural states during election cycles where the tea party was a much stronger force then it is now, what makes you think they could win a general election?

The bottom line is, just like I said in that article, this "true conservative" rationale is self-defeating and dangerous to both the Republican Party and the long-term interests of this country. It is irrational, and frankly mathematically stupid, to immediately dismiss someone you agree with on 70% of the issues or more because of that 30% or less you disagree about, and effectively hand an election to a candidate you agree with 10% of the time or less. That is not an effective way to run a party, to win an election or to get anything done in Washington. And that sort of uncompromising, unforgiving mentality is why this party is in the tough spot it's in when it comes to the country's only nationwide election, not some lack of "true conservatives."

Bamakid for president.

[LumRaiderFan]

I agree that spending cuts are necessary as a matter of national life and death. The issue of whether education and public health are federal or state issues, however, is not, except where financial matters are concerned and solely where financial matters are concerned.

 

On the subject of the Founding Fathers' interpretations of the Constitution regarding the safeguards they implemented to protect against government gone wild, the earliest Supreme Court interpretations of the Constitution interpreted the Bill of Rights as limitations only on the federal government, not the state governments, and favored very broad interpretations of federal powers such as the Commerce Clause. It wasn't until the Fourteenth Amendment that things as basic as Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion and the Right to Bear Arms were incorporated as restrictions on the state powers as well. The Founding Fathers saw popular sovereignty as the strongest defense against a federal government that is too powerful, with the codified limits on federal power setting up the framework for public debate. This means that they felt public opinion should be the deciding factor on matters such as whether the federal government has gotten too big except in the most extreme cases, and I doubt public opinion would favor doing away with the Department of Education, Medicare or the rest. Additionally, George Washington himself sided with federalists more times than not, embracing a stronger national government and in particular a stronger executive branch. Therefore, it's hard for me to accept that things like the Department of Education, Medicare and so on are outright affronts to the Founding Fathers' views. I think it's reasonable to say that they would have felt these things better handled by the states (again, in principle, I feel the same way), but I don't think they would be horrified at the thought of the federal government becoming involved in them.

 

The Founding Fathers knew, I feel, that the more areas that the fed gov became involved in would grow into something too large to properly manage, and would only invite inefficiency and corruption...and this has proven to be true.

 

There is a reason that liberals such as Obama consider the Constitution a "Charter of negative liberties".

[PN-G bamatex]

The Some of the Founding Fathers knew, I feel, that the more areas that the fed gov became involved in would grow into something too large to properly manage, and would only invite inefficiency and corruption...and this has proven to be true.

 

There is a reason that liberals such as Obama consider the Constitution a "Charter of negative liberties".

 

FIFY

 

As I said, George Washington more often embraced the federalist view than the anti-federalist view. He more often sided with the father of the federalists, Alexander Hamilton, than he did Thomas Jefferson, the father of the anti-federalists and the Founding Father who espoused views most closely aligned to yours. Don't mistake anti-federalism for a view held by all of the Founding Fathers. John Marshall, the first notable Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and one of the men who led the fight for the Constitution's ratification alongside James Madison, laid the bedrock for Congress's Commerce Clause power, which is arguably their most broad and influential one.

 

I can agree that the states are where most of the issues should be debated and resolved via legislation in principle. On issues of education, healthcare and others that are similar in nature, it seems logical to have state legislators be the ultimate power since each individual citizen finds stronger individual representation in smaller legislative districts than they do in large congressional districts, and because state legislators are, as a result, more easily held accountable to their constituents. That said, the bottom line is that for the last 80 years, that's not how things have operated. There is no effective way to take federally funded programs like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and so on, break them up, and hand them to the states. That kind of transition would be disastrous for the states at the administrative, regulatory and financial levels. You would bankrupt half the states in the country or more, and fracture massive portions of the federal government in the process. The fact is, whatever the principle of the matter may be, it just isn't practical. It is just as important to cut the budget sensibly as it is to cut the budget at all.

 

And most importantly, we're not going to get a winnable presidential candidate who says things like that. Governor Romney, as I recall, made those exact statements in his bid for president two years ago. Despite that highly conservative stance, he didn't win. The point of that article I wrote and the point that I'm trying to convey in these posts now is that we have to accept that in politics, principle has to be balanced with pragmatism if we're to have our core interests be served at all. That's why all this "true conservative" business just doesn't make sense.

[LumRaiderFan]

FIFY
 
As I said, George Washington more often embraced the federalist view than the anti-federalist view. He more often sided with the father of the federalists, Alexander Hamilton, than he did Thomas Jefferson, the father of the anti-federalists and the Founding Father who espoused views most closely aligned to yours. Don't mistake anti-federalism for a view held by all of the Founding Fathers. John Marshall, the first notable Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and one of the men who led the fight for the Constitution's ratification alongside James Madison, laid the bedrock for Congress's Commerce Clause power, which is arguably their most broad and influential one.
 
I can agree that the states are where most of the issues should be debated and resolved via legislation in principle. On issues of education, healthcare and others that are similar in nature, it seems logical to have state legislators be the ultimate power since each individual citizen finds stronger individual representation in smaller legislative districts than they do in large congressional districts, and because state legislators are, as a result, more easily held accountable to their constituents. That said, the bottom line is that for the last 80 years, that's not how things have operated. There is no effective way to take federally funded programs like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and so on, break them up, and hand them to the states. That kind of transition would be disastrous for the states at the administrative, regulatory and financial levels. You would bankrupt half the states in the country or more, and fracture massive portions of the federal government in the process. The fact is, whatever the principle of the matter may be, it just isn't practical. It is just as important to cut the budget sensibly as it is to cut the budget at all.
 
And most importantly, we're not going to get a winnable presidential candidate who says things like that. Governor Romney, as I recall, made those exact statements in his bid for president two years ago. Despite that highly conservative stance, he didn't win. The point of that article I wrote and the point that I'm trying to convey in these posts now is that we have to accept that in politics, principle has to be balanced with pragmatism if we're to have our core interests be served at all. That's why all this "true conservative" business just doesn't make sense.

I get it...the important thing is to have an "R" in office...whether or not the debt continues to climb is unimportant... We won.

I am not saying cut all these programs at once but if we don't begin to trim this bloated budget, these programs will be cut at some point because there will be too many takers for the givers to support.

[PN-G bamatex]

I get it...the important thing is to have an "R" in office...whether or not the debt continues to climb is unimportant... We won.

 

That's not what I said at all. I didn't say to win for the sake of winning, and I certainly didn't say not to cut. I said that we have to cut in a pragmatic fashion, and that you have to support someone willing to do that - not cut haphazardly and altogether - if you want to get someone who will make cuts at all.

[LumRaiderFan]

That's not what I said at all. I didn't say to win for the sake of winning, and I certainly didn't say not to cut. I said that we have to cut in a pragmatic fashion, and that you have to support someone willing to do that - not cut haphazardly and altogether - if you want to get someone who will make cuts at all.

I agree 100% ...hopefully we are not past the point where a candidate touting smaller government is still electable.

[EnlightenedMessiah]

True "small government" republicans will not get air play on fox. Mainstream republicans arent small government except for the programs they oppose.

[RETIREDFAN1]

W. spent money like a drunken sailor?

 

Bush 43's average deficits were roughly half of Obama's average deficits. Most of Bush's deficits stemmed from unfunded liabilities in the form of preexisting programs that came due when the baby boom generation started hitting the right ages (i.e., Medicare, Social Security, etc.). In fact, in that regard, Bush saved us some money; I can't imagine what we'd be spending on Medicare had we not reformed Part C to force the private health care providers to get competitive. The only spending that is truly a result of the Bush administration is the spending on Homeland Security and the War on Terrorism, which was a fraction of the deficit and an absolute necessity following 9/11.

 

That brings us to the Patriot Act, in which case I'll say your assertion is just flat out wrong. There's plenty in that bill that's conservative. In fact, I think it's fair to say that was an extremely conservative security bill passed with overwhelming support in the hysteria and paranoia following 9/11. Are there parts of it that I don't agree with? Absolutely. There are parts of it that I think are an outright affront to our core liberty interests. I nonetheless look at it as a highly defensive bill passed by a highly defensive nation in the wake of the worst attack on American soil in US history - in essence, that it was a natural result of the circumstances. In any case, that's beside the point, which is simply this: while the Patriot Act may have gone too far, it's no secret that strong national defense is a core value for conservatives, and the Patriot Act went a long way toward shoring up that defense.

 

 

W's record speaks for itself.......he spent like a drunk sailor.....he has YET to see a spending bill he didn't like....didn't VETO a single one that I recall.......It's not a "cut" when you spend more $$$$, just not as much as you spent last year anywhere in this world except the halls of government.......

 

The "patriot" act is far from Conservative.....Conservatives revere The Constitution, we don't piss on it as that abomination does......