The Neo-Cons false claim
- Thread starter klaatu
- Start date
Beefy, please tell me where all these "principled conservatives" are. 99% of the american electorate in 2000 and 2004 voted for either the democrat, or the republican. Presumably, all conservatives - religious cons, "goldwater-type"cons, or otherwise - in america voted to make bush president....twice.
And I didn't hear a single peep from conservatives about mounting a primary challenger to bush in 2004: supporting a conservative challenger more to their liking. There was dead silence. I didn't hear any conservative - principled or otherwise - even mention the possibility of a primary challenger to bush.
Last edited:
Beefy
Worst gambler ever
There are certain principles of Conservatism that are not subject to the party that claims to espouse Conservative principles.
Small Government is a Conservative ideal. Big government is a Liberal ideal.
Look at how the vast majority of the money is being spent, and call that conservative.
Nation building is not a Conservative ideal.
Exploratory wars are not a Conservative ideal.
Interventionism is not a conservative ideal.
Tax cuts are a conservative ideal insofar as fiscal conservatism is concerned, and everyone on the planet (except Dixie) knows that this is not a fiscally conservative Party - The Republicans.
No, they're not Conservative.
OrnotBitwise
Watermelon
There are two entirely separate and distinct principles under discussion here, yet everyone seems intent on smearing them together, like kindergarten fingerpainting.
1) "Real" (or genuine, or traditional, or not lowfat; whatever) Conservativism, on the one hand and . . .
2) The "core" support of the Republican Party.
Where is it written that those two are the same thing? It seems to me that the Republican Party rejected the "real" (e.g. small government) conservatives right about the time I was born.
It seems to me that the neo-cons' claim on the heart of the national GOP is legit. They do indeed represent the core values of the Republican Party . . . as of the past 50 years or so. Indeed, the neo-cons are pretty much quintessentially Republican, of the modern era.
1) "Real" (or genuine, or traditional, or not lowfat; whatever) Conservativism, on the one hand and . . .
2) The "core" support of the Republican Party.
Where is it written that those two are the same thing? It seems to me that the Republican Party rejected the "real" (e.g. small government) conservatives right about the time I was born.
It seems to me that the neo-cons' claim on the heart of the national GOP is legit. They do indeed represent the core values of the Republican Party . . . as of the past 50 years or so. Indeed, the neo-cons are pretty much quintessentially Republican, of the modern era.
Last edited:
Beefy
Worst gambler ever
Agreed, but I would say that it has been more like 10 years since they've started representing.
OrnotBitwise
Watermelon
It's been, I'd say, exactly 13 years since the neo-cons (or their philosphical antecedants) gained the party -- by eye of Newt and toe of Shelby. The trend toward that kind of thinking, however, started much earlier. Eisenhower warned of it, and he's been proven right in a great many things.
If Dick Nixon hadn't had a fetish for Vietnam he would have been remembered, I think, as the most Democrat-friendly Republican of the modern era. Okay, being sane would have helped too. Let's not split hairs. I'm talking about the general trend of the Republican Party not specific incidents.
Ronald McPresident was anything but a "small government" conservative. Look at the way he spent his grandchildrens' money and his penchant for military adventurism. He was a Big Business plutocrat and elitist, not a libertarian or Man of the Enlightenment.
I'm not a Democrat either. That party too isn't what it once was. That's a topic for another thread, however.
Last edited:
klaatu
Fusionist
It's been, I'd say, exactly 13 years since the neo-cons (or their philosphical antecedants) gained the party -- by eye of Newt and toe of Shelby. The trend toward that kind of thinking, however, started much earlier. Eisenhower warned of it, and he's been proven right in a great many things.
If Dick Nixon hadn't had a fetish for Vietnam he would have been remembered, I think, as the most Democrat-friendly Republican of the modern era. Okay, being sane would have helped too. Let's not split hairs. I'm talking about the general trend of the Republican Party not specific incidents.
Ronald McPresident was anything but a "small government" conservative. Look at the way he spent his grandchildrens' money and his penchant for military adventurism. He was a Big Business plutocrat and elitist, not a libertarian or Man of the Enlightenment.
I'm not a Democrat either. That party too isn't what it once was. That's a topic for another thread, however.
As you implied..Nixon was hardly a Conservative and yet let us not forget he was the one that pulled us out of Vietnam after Johnson and the Dems buried us in there.
As far as the Gipper goes ... just as the Republican Congress should be blamed for the past 6 years of overspending and praised for working with Clinton to reduce Government in the 90's... the Dems should be remembered for over spending in the 80's. Reagan built up Arms in the 80's because the Military needed an overhaul.. it was an old and outdated machine...and in hind sight it wasnt bad stratagy, as it lead us into Stretegic Arms negotiations with Gorby....and we all know what resulted thereafter ...
Congress writes the budget .... the President merely strikes deals on how he'll sign off on it... ie ...Fed spending, Military spending .., Tax hikes or reductions. Congress is responsible for how much of the budget is tailored towards each state.. ie. Senator Byrds famous pork barrel deals. Thats whats responsible for the Big red Holes.
klaatu
Fusionist
You talkin 'bout Nixon? His disastrous Price Freeze?
uscitizen
Villified User
Wage and price freeze...Yes.
klaatu
Fusionist
Yup.. and that set the stage for one of the worst economies ever ... the 70's was a nightmare .. It got so bad that when a Mcdonalds hired...there was a line of people waiting outside.. and this is no exaggeration.
The 70's is the single reason as to why Reagan is so fondly remembered .. he really did usher in a rendezvous with destiny ... except for a blip here and a blip there... the economy has generally been kicking ass since the middle of 1983.
uscitizen
Villified User
Yep, Regan signed the bill approving the use of the SS surplus as general tax revenues and used it to offset the defecit.
Also he massaged numbers by counting the military as employed in the unemployment figures, and removed their unemployment ins benefits when they got out of the service. Who says you can't have your cake and eat it too ?
Regan just had good astrologers advising him
Also he massaged numbers by counting the military as employed in the unemployment figures, and removed their unemployment ins benefits when they got out of the service. Who says you can't have your cake and eat it too ?
Regan just had good astrologers advising him
"Whip Inflation Now" was Jerry Ford's silly slogan. Remember those "WIN" buttons he wore?
He had an amazing approval rating before he pardoned Nixon.