Now That Conservatives Are Jumping Ship From The Party That Abandoned Them, The Time Has Come For A REAL “Liberal” Party To Challenge The Democratic Party, Wouldn’t You Agree?
The Politico is reporting the trouble in G.O.P.-Ville, where Republican popularity ratings have fallen several points below the popularity rating for aggressive and poisonous spiders and snakes has increased tenfold with the new “Conservative” movement’s increasing popularity. The “must read” article is entitled “Uncivil War: Conservatives to challenge a dozen GOP candidates” and it details how this phenomenon is quickly becoming a “nightmare scenario” for the Grand Old Party as several (so far one dozen and counting) of these new “Conservative Party” advocates are gearing up to challenge key Senate and Congressional seats currently held by those they feel are RINO’s.
Interestingly, as a sidenote, I thought the Tea Partiers, whom are key behind this new “Conservative Party” movement were sold to We, The People, as a “bi-partisan” group? Ah, I must have gotten that part wrong. Or DID I (Google)? Oh well, I digressed for a moment but now, back to the main point of my column…
Conservatives — a REAL group of REAL Conservatives, taking on the “establishment” — gotta love it. Liberals? Now it’s OUR turn. If ever there has been a better time to commence with the “out with the old, in with the new” cliché and make it happen for real with these two hijacked parties who have hijacked our government and our Constitution by force-feeding us a two-party system CARTEL, the time is NOW.
Oh, sure — I rank and I rank on the G.O.P. and its Republican leadership on a regular basis around here and for good reason. But I surely do respect ANY independent-minded CONSERVATIVE although my points of view in many cases might differ with theirs on the subject of governance. At least, you can trust a true Conservative — you know exactly what they want right up front — to slap the Ten Commandments on the walls of every government building, to police whom one sleeps with and how, to eliminate social programs almost entirely, etc., etc., etc. On the other hand, like the Democratic Party is rapidly beginning to teach we true, independent-minded Liberals (the “L” is capitalized on purpose, of course) they, too cannot be trusted to represent us and our concerns and goals — to instill a compassionate but fiscally responsible government, to be great stewards of our Earth and her animal kingdom (formerly a true “Conservative” value — what happened there guys?), compassionate treatment of the (former) Middle Class worker and the furthering of green technology.
I, for one, would love to see two NEW parties representing these core values banging it out in the debates — publicly-funded campaigns (i.e., Public Campaign Financing), everybody from the top-five polling parties all involved with the exact same amount of money to spend and everybody gets in on the debates — PERIOD.
And that, folks, is the ONLY way I can see to stop The Eagle from flying around and around in circles. Your mileage may vary.
***
Let’s check out some [REAL] Conservative blogger reactions to this news: Ed Morrissey of Hot Air; Dan Riehl of Riehl World View
Loading ...
10:05 pm on November 3rd, 2009 1
Guns wrote: “we true, independent-minded Liberals (the “L” is capitalized on purpose, of course) they, too cannot be trusted to represent us and our concerns and goals — to instill a compassionate but fiscally responsible government, to be great stewards of our Earth and her animal kingdom (formerly a true “Conservative” value — what happened there guys?), compassionate treatment of the (former) Middle Class worker and the furthering of green technology.”
Wow! You seem to be defining “true, independent-minded Liberals (the “L” is capitalized on purpose, of course)” as (GASP!) NEOCONS.
If someone could manage to put together a Jeffersonian party, advocating and preaching Ol’ Tom’s ideas about government and its relationship (I corrected that from ‘relationshit’ – maybe I was on to something with that typo) with We the People, it would likely draw 70% of the people to it. The problem would be the same as it is now though – keeping those elected from becoming power hungy capons once they were in The Hallowed Halls.
The GTL™ Reply:
November 4th, 2009 at 4:44 am
@Joe Lovell, Now, now, NOW, my friend — “Neocon” philosophy is exactly the OPPOSITE of what Mr. Jefferson and his 50-some-odd-other co-Founding Fathers had in mind when they formed this Democratic Republic. As I would hope you know, Neoconservatives are into exporting democracy at the end of a gun barrell while our Founders were ALL (to a MAN) “Separatists” who believed in isolationism with the SOLE exception of commerce — and they would be rolling in their graves at some of the primo trade deals we’ve given our brothers and sisters from across the pond and I’d think you’d be KEENLY aware of this.
TRUE “Liberalism” is just one step away from isolationism, which is a far cry from the NEOCON mantra, my brother
Joe Lovell Reply:
November 4th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
@The GTL™, Hmmm….we seem to be using different definitions. You seem to be using it as “dem debil ‘pulicans I doan laike”
I’m using as it was originally used – those leftists/liberals who had seen the hollowness of he leftist socialist fringe and moved to the center and right. Sometimes called paleoliberals.
Maybe neocons are true progressives – they have ‘progressed’ in their thinking to the point where they can see that the leveling socialism they believed in can’t be made to work in a free society.
The GTL™ Reply:
November 4th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
@Joe Lovell, Ah, yes, indeed we are utilizing two very different and very valid definitions of the term “neoconservative”. Anytime you see me use it, this is what I’m describing (WikiPedia):
Joe Lovell Reply:
November 4th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
@The GTL™, yep.
(hey, how do you get those quote boxes?)
Rich Lowry: Historically, 30 years ago it meant a former liberal who became a conservative. The cliche was because “they were mugged by reality,” but it was because they saw the empirical failures of liberal welfare, state and foreign policies, and they were therefore less ideological than other conservatives and brought much more of a social science background to their argumentation.”
“Paul Gigot: I think of neoconservatism as having a very specific meaning related to history. That is, the neoconservatives were people who in the 1970s were former liberals, in some cases socialists, who moved right in reaction to the left’s shift on cultural mores, personal responsibility and foreign policy. So I think the term “neoconservative” has that narrow meaning of that historical period. I think of them as the Podhoretzes and the Kristols and others. I don’t think “neoconservative” means much anymore. I don’t know what it means now or who they’re referring to.”
Basically, liberals who saw the light.
The GTL™ Reply:
November 5th, 2009 at 1:46 am
@Joe Lovell, You do those quotes like this:
< blockquote >CONTENT< /blockquote > (without any spaces ANYWHERE — had to put some blanks in there otherwise it would have quoted)…
Hope this helps
Doomed Reply:
November 9th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
@The GTL™,
Like Bush and his medicare prescription plan whom has come under fire as a talking point by the left I guess cause they didnt think of it first.
12:51 am on November 4th, 2009 2
Got a problem with the ten commandments? Is there anything about the ten commandments that does not represent the righteous way in which to interact with your fellow human beings? Hell it ought to be plastered in every courthouse, city hall, school, walmart and stoplight.
The GTL™ Reply:
November 4th, 2009 at 5:56 am
@vegofish, I have no problem with the 10 Commandments. Show me where our Founding Fathers, ANY of them, mentioned ANYTHING about the 10 Commandments during the forming and framing of our Constitution and I’ll take a serious look at your own suggestion. Hell, show me where the word “God” is uttered anywhere in the Constitution even… I don’t recall any such occurance myself but then again, I may be wrong — I frequently AM
SJ Reply:
November 4th, 2009 at 8:01 am
@The GTL™,
The thing with the 10 commandments is this: Government (especially local and state) should be FREE to put up a 10 commandments monument (plaque or whatever) if they CHOOSE. If we the people don’t like it, we vote them out and vote in folks to remove it.
The key here is that I believe (and IMHO any rational person should also
) the 10 Commandments does not in anyway establish a govt religion.
Freedom is the key with this and the other issues cited by the GTL. If these conservates are trying to preserve it, then they are definitely worth supporting over the GOP, and certainly the Democrats as well.
Steve
vegofish Reply:
November 4th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
@SJ, I don’t recall the constitution allowing for Hispanic signage in our gov’t buildings, in fact I may be wrong as well, but I think it establishes a national language, which is English, but that doesn’t stop the progressives from insisting on the Hispanic signage. Is their really an argument to be made that if everyone lived life according to the standards set forth in the ten commandments the world would not be a better place?
delftsman Reply:
November 4th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
@The GTL™,
Article 1, section 3 of the initial Articles of Confederation: “And Whereas it hath pleased the GREAT GOVERNOR OF THE WORLD to incline the hearts of the legislatures we respectively represent in Congress, to approve of, and to authorize us to ratify the said Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union.”
While you are correct in stating that God is not mentioned in the Constitution; it still remains a fact that the Founders DID believe that God was the ultimate granter of liberties; that is one thing that a lot of Liberals forget about the Constitution; the Bill of Rights enumerated the “NATURAL (IE. GOD GIVEN)rights” of men by virtue of their existence, and not granted to them by a government. These rights are meaningless unless you posit the existence of a Supreme Being; otherwise they are granted by men, and what men grant, men can take away.
At the time, the existence of a Supreme Being was taken as an unquestioned FACT. Many of the founders didn’t believe in RELIGION. per se (as Jefferson didn’t –nevertheless he WAS a Deist; he DID believe in some sort of Supreme Being)
The greatest thing the Founders did was to allow all men to decide for themselves on HOW they perceived this Being w/o stricture or force by government.
The GTL™ Reply:
November 4th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
@delftsman, I have no argument with your comment here. I suppose you can say I’m just trying to emphasize the semantics here: “Creator” was purposely used by the Founders out of respect they all held for all of the other major religions of the world. If you haven’t read it yet, The 5000 Year Leap is a fantastic book and goes into great detail about this
Joe Lovell Reply:
November 4th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
@The GTL™, Yeah! Let’s take a grinder to the Liberty Bell! Got an eeee-vvviilll Bible (Can I say Bible here?) quote on it.
An aside – did you see where the GOP swept the gubenatorial races yesterday? And the Dems who lost all had had the former jr. sen. from IL campaign for them. Hell, he is even less influential than the former gov. of Alaska! She only campaigned for a guy trying for as seat in the lower house of Congress.
The GTL™ Reply:
November 5th, 2009 at 1:49 am
@Joe Lovell, I DID! I love it. Wouldn’t it be great if all of the blue states voted red and vice versa for a few election cycles? That’d shake the HELL out of the Elites who have stolen our Gub’Mint buildings, wouldn’t it?
Joe Lovell Reply:
November 5th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
@The GTL™, Actually, I want to see us vote plaid, or paisley, or polkadot. We need to break the stranglehold of the two party system. We havn’t had a really vigorous, multi-party election since the War to Prevent Southern Sovereignty.
delftsman Reply:
November 4th, 2009 at 7:12 pm
@The GTL™, Semantics is one thing, but the fact remains that the founders did believe that rights emanated from a higher power than mere governments or man. Everything they put in place is based upon that belief, and without it everything they did becomes subject to the interpretation of the day and absolute “rights” become meaningless.
1:19 pm on November 4th, 2009 3
By the way, if the GOP is so extremely unpopular, how do they win a solid Blue state like New Jersey and totally spank the Dems in Virgina yesterday? Am I missing something?
7:32 pm on November 4th, 2009 4
@GTL -I could be wrong but I believe there are direct quotes from the 10 commandments inbetween the part that says judges can legislate from the bench and the other part that says the federal government can force us to buy health insurance.
SJ Reply:
November 5th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
@Mike 300 Spartans,
Maybe that’s why Pelosi and Gibbs are not concerned about constitutional challenges to Obamacare – it goes WAY back!