Why powell is wrong...
-
"Americans are looking for more government in their life, not less." [^] If that is true, and if it only means more federal government, than we have the correct party in power power now. Obama and co. are fully capable of giving people who want more government as much as they can stand. Why does there need to be any more intellectual effort put into figureing out how best to do that? American conservatism, Jeffersonianism, is about less federal government and more political authority at the local level to figure out how much government is needed by the people who live there. That is how every previous generation of Americans governed themselves. That is what being an American is all about politically. And that is what conservatism promotes. That is what it has always promoted. Republicans have never won by moving to the left, they have won by convincing a majority that the conservative world view is superior. If the people now reject that view, fine. That doesn't mean it is wrong or that it should be abandoned for political expediency. There is nothing wrong with conservatism. There is nothing right wing about social conservatism. When the people finally become tired of more government, they should have a proven, workable alternative prepared for them.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Republicans have never won by moving to the left, they have won by convincing a majority that the conservative world view is superior.
Actually George W won in 2000 by pretending to move left. He marketed himself as a "compassionate conservative". And didn't Mitt Romney win in Massachusetts by embracing some left wing positions? You are kidding yourself with this fundamentalist stuff. Politicians have always been a mix of leaders and followers. If the time is right and the politician is sufficiently gifted, then it is possible for a politician to lead the public to the left or to the right. Reagan led the public to the right. Obama is leading it to the left. If the time is wrong and/or the politician is insufficiently gifted, then clinging to a hard line position can lead to electoral decimation --- as with Goldwater on the right and McGovern on the left. Doggedly clinging to what you imagine to have been the politics of a couple of centuries ago may have some virtues, but being a formula for electoral success isn't one of them.
John Carson
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
"Americans are looking for more government in their life, not less."
They are just ignorant. What they really need is more education, and not the 'education' Oboomba and Binlad****in calls for.
Intel 4004 wrote:
They are just ignorant.
Yes, you are.
Intel 4004 wrote:
What they really need is more education
Yes, you do. You're the poster boy for needs an education.
"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke
I'm a proud denizen of the Real Soapbox[^]
ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES!!! -
"Americans are looking for more government in their life, not less." [^] If that is true, and if it only means more federal government, than we have the correct party in power power now. Obama and co. are fully capable of giving people who want more government as much as they can stand. Why does there need to be any more intellectual effort put into figureing out how best to do that? American conservatism, Jeffersonianism, is about less federal government and more political authority at the local level to figure out how much government is needed by the people who live there. That is how every previous generation of Americans governed themselves. That is what being an American is all about politically. And that is what conservatism promotes. That is what it has always promoted. Republicans have never won by moving to the left, they have won by convincing a majority that the conservative world view is superior. If the people now reject that view, fine. That doesn't mean it is wrong or that it should be abandoned for political expediency. There is nothing wrong with conservatism. There is nothing right wing about social conservatism. When the people finally become tired of more government, they should have a proven, workable alternative prepared for them.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Republicans have never won by moving to the left
Stan, you know better than that. The Republicans came into being as a leftist party. It was their radical ideas - including the abolition of slavery - that made the South think that it had no choice but to rebel. Forty years later, Teddy Roosevelt was way to the left as he forced laws through that changed the role of government to include the regulation of of business on a scale never before even thought of. It wasn't until after WWI that Republicans donned the Jeffersonian mantle of the government that governs least, governs best. Something they seem fairly successful at proclaiming, as long as they are not in power. Unfortunately, under the guidance of Karl Rove, they forgot their principles and espoused a government that, while it stayed out of the boardroom, raped the American middle-class to pay for a meaningless war, they would not raise taxes for, and attempted to regulate everything that happened in the bedroom as if Saul of Tarsus was their leader.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Republicans have never won by moving to the left
Stan, you know better than that. The Republicans came into being as a leftist party. It was their radical ideas - including the abolition of slavery - that made the South think that it had no choice but to rebel. Forty years later, Teddy Roosevelt was way to the left as he forced laws through that changed the role of government to include the regulation of of business on a scale never before even thought of. It wasn't until after WWI that Republicans donned the Jeffersonian mantle of the government that governs least, governs best. Something they seem fairly successful at proclaiming, as long as they are not in power. Unfortunately, under the guidance of Karl Rove, they forgot their principles and espoused a government that, while it stayed out of the boardroom, raped the American middle-class to pay for a meaningless war, they would not raise taxes for, and attempted to regulate everything that happened in the bedroom as if Saul of Tarsus was their leader.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
raped the American middle-class to pay for a meaningless war, they would not raise taxes for
so just how did that work?
Oakman wrote:
attempted to regulate everything that happened in the bedroom as if Saul of Tarsus was their leader
what? where? when?
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Republicans have never won by moving to the left, they have won by convincing a majority that the conservative world view is superior.
Actually George W won in 2000 by pretending to move left. He marketed himself as a "compassionate conservative". And didn't Mitt Romney win in Massachusetts by embracing some left wing positions? You are kidding yourself with this fundamentalist stuff. Politicians have always been a mix of leaders and followers. If the time is right and the politician is sufficiently gifted, then it is possible for a politician to lead the public to the left or to the right. Reagan led the public to the right. Obama is leading it to the left. If the time is wrong and/or the politician is insufficiently gifted, then clinging to a hard line position can lead to electoral decimation --- as with Goldwater on the right and McGovern on the left. Doggedly clinging to what you imagine to have been the politics of a couple of centuries ago may have some virtues, but being a formula for electoral success isn't one of them.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
Actually George W won in 2000 by pretending to move left
not true. he won because Gore is an absolute moron.
John Carson wrote:
He marketed himself as a "compassionate conservative".
sure did, but conservatives are compassionate. however, it just so happens that Bush is not / was not conservative.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
Oakman wrote:
raped the American middle-class to pay for a meaningless war, they would not raise taxes for
so just how did that work?
Oakman wrote:
attempted to regulate everything that happened in the bedroom as if Saul of Tarsus was their leader
what? where? when?
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
so just how did that work?
Not very well. A lot of soldiers died or were maimed because they tried to run the war on the cheap and ultimately a lot of people woke up to the fact that Bush was financing the war by borrowing money our kids would have to pay back.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
what? where? when?
Try googling on same-sex marriage, stem-cell research, abortion
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Republicans have never won by moving to the left
Stan, you know better than that. The Republicans came into being as a leftist party. It was their radical ideas - including the abolition of slavery - that made the South think that it had no choice but to rebel. Forty years later, Teddy Roosevelt was way to the left as he forced laws through that changed the role of government to include the regulation of of business on a scale never before even thought of. It wasn't until after WWI that Republicans donned the Jeffersonian mantle of the government that governs least, governs best. Something they seem fairly successful at proclaiming, as long as they are not in power. Unfortunately, under the guidance of Karl Rove, they forgot their principles and espoused a government that, while it stayed out of the boardroom, raped the American middle-class to pay for a meaningless war, they would not raise taxes for, and attempted to regulate everything that happened in the bedroom as if Saul of Tarsus was their leader.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
Stan, you know better than that. The Republicans came into being as a leftist party. It was their radical ideas - including the abolition of slavery - that made the South think that it had no choice but to rebel. Forty years later, Teddy Roosevelt was way to the left as he forced laws through that changed the role of government to include the regulation of of business on a scale never before even thought of.
Hardly, but I guess if that revisionism helps your agenda who am I to argue? And, of course, you still promote the myth of the entrenched southern aristocracy ruling over the masses of destitute landless red neck peasants. So, I'm not surprised at any historic nonsense you spout to promote your cause.
Oakman wrote:
It wasn't until after WWI that Republicans donned the Jeffersonian mantle of the government that governs least, governs best. Something they seem fairly successful at proclaiming, as long as they are not in power.
Although, you are not too far off the mark with that. But then, the early 20th century saw a genral abandonment of Jeffonsianism, so its rediscovery a little later should be no surprise.
Oakman wrote:
Unfortunately, under the guidance of Karl Rove, they forgot their principles and espoused a government that, while it stayed out of the boardroom, raped the American middle-class to pay for a meaningless war, they would not raise taxes for, and attempted to regulate everything that happened in the bedroom as if Saul of Tarsus was their leader.
... and then, back to the myth making...
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
Stan, you know better than that. The Republicans came into being as a leftist party. It was their radical ideas - including the abolition of slavery - that made the South think that it had no choice but to rebel. Forty years later, Teddy Roosevelt was way to the left as he forced laws through that changed the role of government to include the regulation of of business on a scale never before even thought of.
Hardly, but I guess if that revisionism helps your agenda who am I to argue? And, of course, you still promote the myth of the entrenched southern aristocracy ruling over the masses of destitute landless red neck peasants. So, I'm not surprised at any historic nonsense you spout to promote your cause.
Oakman wrote:
It wasn't until after WWI that Republicans donned the Jeffersonian mantle of the government that governs least, governs best. Something they seem fairly successful at proclaiming, as long as they are not in power.
Although, you are not too far off the mark with that. But then, the early 20th century saw a genral abandonment of Jeffonsianism, so its rediscovery a little later should be no surprise.
Oakman wrote:
Unfortunately, under the guidance of Karl Rove, they forgot their principles and espoused a government that, while it stayed out of the boardroom, raped the American middle-class to pay for a meaningless war, they would not raise taxes for, and attempted to regulate everything that happened in the bedroom as if Saul of Tarsus was their leader.
... and then, back to the myth making...
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Maybe when I post, you should simply reply with "I refuse to accept your cold and sharp-edged facts, they contradict my warm and fuzzy beliefs," and save yourself a lot of extra typing.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Maybe when I post, you should simply reply with "I refuse to accept your cold and sharp-edged facts, they contradict my warm and fuzzy beliefs," and save yourself a lot of extra typing.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
Maybe when I post, you should simply reply with "I refuse to accept your cold and sharp-edged facts, they contradict my warm and fuzzy beliefs," and save yourself a lot of extra typing.
I promise to do that if you ever actually post a fact.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
Maybe when I post, you should simply reply with "I refuse to accept your cold and sharp-edged facts, they contradict my warm and fuzzy beliefs," and save yourself a lot of extra typing.
I promise to do that if you ever actually post a fact.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I promise to do that if you ever actually post a fact.
I refuse to accept your warm and fuzzy beliefs because they contradict my cold, sharp-edged facts
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin