20 / May
20 / May
Conservative Movement, RIP

I'm a sucker for articles on the state of the conservative movement, even ones written by people who always believe it's a step away from falling off the cliff. That is the template for articles by liberals on conservatives for as long as I can remember. Such premature post mortems, always betraying the anthropologist-among-the-primitives vibe, are nearly as old as the conservative movement itself. Yet in proclaiming the conservative movement a step away from falling off the cliff, George Packer's The Fall of Conservatism in The New Yorker perhaps errs by failing to realize that conservatives were two steps ahead of him.

There is no conservative movement. It is one of the many casualties of the George W. Bush presidency. The arcane phrase reflects a world of YAFers, "Don't Immanentize the Eschaton" buttons, and debates over the Bricker Amendment. That does not exist anymore. The issues that once united, initially anti-Communism and limited government, don't. Eurocommunism is gone and party conservatives now openly question the utility of even limited government rhetoric in 21st-century America. The Bush presidency has made a mockery of the idea of a "conservative" movement. Do I belong to the same "movement" as those calling for a big-government conservatism? Should Pat Buchanan, who opposes the democratizing project, fall under the same label as David Frum, who names numerous countries besides Iraq that he thinks the U.S. should invade? What values do televangelist Pat Robertson and radio lesbian Tammy Bruce share? Yet, this same word, "conservative," is applied to all of the above.

Conservatism the label became more popular than conservatism the outlook. Thus, people who mistake Russell Kirk for the captain of the Starship Enterprise jumped on the bandwagon, hijacked the driver's seat, and sent it off course. The more that people called themselves "conservative," the less "conservative" resembled conservatism. Fairly recently--perhaps when conservatives mistook Clinton bashing for a positive articulation of their ideas, perhaps when movement leaders conflated the Republican Party with the conservative movement during George W. Bush's presidency--the conservative movement ceased being a vehicle advancing conservatism and started being an impediment to it.

The New Yorker piece infers the conservative movement's main influence upon America was to cynically divide it for electoral gain, as if conservatives invented abortion, racial preferences, and gun control. Packer caustically notes that conservatives "had done nothing to provide universal health-care coverage or arrest growing economic inequality," a line that appears to conservatives as inane as if I were to complain to liberals that they had done nothing to cut government or outlaw abortion. In other words, it is by the standards of liberal success that Packer judges conservatives. If arresting the advance of socialized medicine and resisting economic leveling is failure, I don't want to succeed.

For all its faults, the piece accurately details the conflicting positions on the Right about where conservatives should go from here. "One is the purist version: Bush expanded the size of government and created huge deficits; allowed Republicans in Congress to fatten lobbyists and stuff budgets full of earmarks; tried to foist democracy on a Muslim country; failed to secure the border; and thus won the justified wrath of the American people. This account--shared by Pat Buchanan, the columnist George F. Will, and many Republicans in Congress--has the appeal of asking relatively little of conservatives. They need only to repent of their sins, rid themselves of the neoconservatives who had agitated for the Iraq invasion, and return to first principles."

"The second version--call it reformist--is more painful, because it's based on the recognition that, though Bush's fatal incompetence and Rove's shortsighted tactics hastened the conservative movement's demise, they didn't cause it," Packer writes. "In this view, conservatism has a more serious problem than self-betrayal: a doctrinaire failure to adapt to new circumstances, new problems."

It is interesting that the solutions liberals offer for revitalizing conservatism is always to make it more like liberalism. Judging from the piece, more than a few conservatives subscribe to this notion. What happened to standing athwart history yelling stop? Conservatives who balk at conserving conservatism are not worthy of the label. If they don't adopt a new label, perhaps actual conservatives should. Who wants to be confused for people holding views diametrically opposed to their own?

Sure, the world changes. And sure, it's stale for conservatives to refight the Cold War or imagine every favored presidential candidate as the next Ronald Reagan. The new challenge of conservatism is to conserve itself. A prejudice for tradition, the protection of private property, skepticism of schemes and ideologies, respect for the rule of law and contempt for the rule of caprice, deference to the authority of God--these are timeless principles. The conservative movement is dead. But conservatism lives. It is the former's passing that gives hope for the latter's future.

posted at 12:21 AM

Here, Here Dan. Please email this to Warrior. He would agree with you 100%. Especially the last sentence.

Be well,


Posted by: SpongeDaddy on May 20, 2008 01:06 AM

Read that piece this morning, Dan. Couldn't agree with your assessment of it more.

Posted by: Ben-T on May 20, 2008 02:07 AM

Both David Frum and David Horowitz consider Christopher Hitchens, a self-confessed Marxist and atheist, to be their "friend." Why? Because he supports the war in Iraq. Of course they both detest Pat Buchanan. Why? He opposes the war in Iraq.

This is telling because it illustrates that conservative movement is nothing more than 1) war and 2) increasing the power of the security state.

The conservative movement has gone through permutations, but it's kept a core doctrine that animated its ideas. During the 1980s conservatism was essentially the belief in tax cuts, less government, and the importance of the free market. When "conservative" defend the 1980s they are essentially defending the principle of the free market.

In the 1990s conservatism was defined by the cultural wars. These issues ranged from abortion, to race and affirmative action, to homosexuality and illegitimacy. But these conservative cultural issues didn't go against the belief in free markets.

However, neither the principle of free-markets nor the cultural war define conservatism. Conservatism has been reduced to a single principle: increasing the power of the security state, implying war, torture, warantless wiretapping etc. These principles not only differ from conservative history, but contradict it. The conservative movement is dead so long as 9/11 continues to be the dominant image in conservative eyes.

Posted by: Eric Wilds on May 20, 2008 04:38 AM

American Conservatism has often meant, and I hope will come to mean again, the preservation and continued implementation of the principles of the American Revolution. Those principles can be broadly stated: First, any group but the appropriately authorized community (authorized through compact, expressed or implied) that attempts to impose its will on Americans through governmental or violent action is acting unjustly; Second, the precedent of such injustice can be dangerous even when its current manifestations appears to be insignificant or benign (like a tax on tea raised to help defend us); Third, such danger justifies putting in jeopardy our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.

The conservatives of Bill Buckleyís generation saw the worldwide communist movement as a group that was making a plausible attempt to impose its will on us. Anti-communism became a key part of the conservative movement of the second half of the twentieth century. Conservatives now disagree about whether violent Jihadists are such a threat. This disagreement over facts is seen by too many on both sides as a disagreement over conservatism itself.

Some conservative libertarians have been convinced by the liberal John Stuart Mill and his followers that they can ascertain objective, non-contracted, non-God-given boundaries that even an otherwise-authorized community must be prevented from transgressing. They have added their boundaries to the traditional ones and, so, conservatives now disagree about the nature of these boundaries.

(Of course my definition makes American Conservatism quite unlike European conservatism and that is another source of disagreement within the ďmovement.Ē)

It is these disagreements, combined with the control of education and the prestige media by the counter-Revolutionary Progressives, which have made American Conservatism an incoherent force.

Posted by: DocMcG on May 20, 2008 12:07 PM

I think Doc makes a point worth highlighting here: "Conservatives now disagree about whether violent Jihadists are such a threat. This disagreement over facts is seen by too many on both sides as a disagreement over conservatism itself." A recent consersation with a principled conservative who nevertheless supported the Iraq invasion got me to thinking about how people who have been interlinked on so many issues could come apart on this one. Basically, I came to the conclusion that why someone supported the Iraq adventure mattered perhaps as much as that they did. For those who supported out of some utopian scheme of democratizing the Middle East, I can have no common cause with them. I don't regard their project as emanating from conservative principles. But for those who supported the Iraq war because they believed that Saddam Hussein possessed vast quantities of WMDs that he intended to unleash upon the U.S., my disagreement is merely one of facts. Had I believed the same thing, I would have supported the war too. In other words, as Doc suggests above, disagreements over facts aren't catastrophic as disagreemets over principles are.

Posted by: Dan Flynn on May 20, 2008 01:19 PM

The disagreement isn't over whether we consider Jihad to be a threat, but how we respond to it. Two conservatives may disagree over the state of the economy -- one may conclude we are in a recession, and the other that we are not -- but if the one who believes we are in a recession argues in favor of government programs, big spending, a minimum wage increase, and Socialism, is that person still a conservative?

So the difference between the Neocons and the others is not a factual dispute, but a conflict in world views.

Posted by: Eric Wilds on May 20, 2008 04:36 PM

But Eric, not everyone who supported the Iraq invasion--which exceeded two thirds of Americans at one point--were "necons." Many garden-variety conservatives believed, based on Hussein's lack of cooperation, his use of WMDs in the past, and faulty intelligence reports, that Hussein posed a threat to the U.S. They were wrong, but on factual rather than philosophical grounds. Supporting a war based on national security reasons, I contend, is different than supporting a war based on the idea that forcibly converting foreign countries into democracies will usher in an era of peace. The former finds a casus belli in the national security of America, and the latter finds it in a utopian ideology. In other words, my quarrel with one is on facts and with the other on principle.

Posted by: Dan Flynn on May 20, 2008 04:57 PM

Great post and comments. I think many inclkuding myself fall into the Paleo vs. Neo con trap. There are some conservatives that do not have a home in either camp.

What can we call ourselves?

Posted by: Marty on May 20, 2008 05:52 PM

Dan I feel your pain man! I'm a small government conservative who's just resigned form the Republican Exectutive Committee here in NE FL. I did it tonight after agonizing about the decision for the last three weeks. I CANNOT be part of the leftward swing of my party. I've spoken my mind about the Imposter (John McCain) at length, and here in FL we have the added insult of Mel Martinez and Charlie (the Global Warming Wacko) Crist.
I'm convinced McCain will beat Obama, and sadly that thought gives me very little comfort.


Posted by: Morgan, aka JINGOIST on May 20, 2008 09:48 PM

Marty as a Jewish conservative I've been called a NEOCON by hissing leftists, but what exactly does that mean? I believe in a much smaller and more Constitutional government AND a strong forward defense. I like to think of myself as a Reagan conservative. Was he a "Neocon"?


Posted by: Morgan, aka JINGOIST on May 20, 2008 09:51 PM


I mostly agree with you in your discussion with Eric Wilds re: facts vs. principle/philosophy. However, there may have been some who weren't wrongly utopian in their support of the war, unlike the neo-cons, but were nonetheless were still wrong on conservative principle. And that is b/c they supported a war, regardless of the facts, that was plainly unconstitutional.

They violated a fundamental principle that even Alexander Hamilton got right: that in America, unlike the king, it is the people's representatives that have to make the call whether to send the people's husbands, fathers, and sons, and now too (most woefully) mothers, daughters and wives, off to war.

And, clearly and definitionally-speaking, they also violated the rule of law, advocating that the Constitution be ignored b/c it is just so inconvenient when we are itching to drop bombs on the villain du jour. On principle, how is this different than mob justice?


Posted by: Eric F. Langborgh on May 20, 2008 11:00 PM

Getting now to the original point of your good post, I have long since essentially jettisoned the "conservative" label. I find it practically useless anymore, and certainly not the clarifying short-hand it once was. I'm a constitutionalist first and foremost. Depending on my mood and the issue, I might find the paleo-conservative or paleo-libertarian label appealing. I'd take "classical liberal," but the good folks at FEE have been trying to get that one to fly for a long-time now and it just isn't catching on. Plus the original classical liberals too often had disregard for the use of tradition (and included folks like John Stuart Mill, from whom much of modern liberalism descends).

So, really I am just left with "constitutionalist," and then I have to explain further that I believe in truly free markets (as opposed to both socialism and corporatism), the right of both individuals and communities to self-determination, which is another way of saying I agree with subsidiarity; I think federalism is just dandy. And so on.

It ain't as convenient having to explain myself, but maybe that's okay. Perhaps the conservatism has lost its way in part b/c it got lazy, choosing simple labels, sound-bites, and name-calling instead of considered dialogue, reflection, and the good but sometimes hard work of peaceful persuasion.

Posted by: Eric F. Langborgh on May 20, 2008 11:02 PM

Funny - I just noticed that DocMcG mentioned JSM, too. "Great minds..." I guess. ;)

Posted by: Eric F. Langborgh on May 20, 2008 11:07 PM

Just in case no one noticed, Doc also made an outrageously non-conservative offhand comment: "Some conservative libertarians have been convinced by the liberal John Stuart Mill and his followers that they can ascertain objective, non-contracted, non-God-given boundaries that even an otherwise-authorized community must be prevented from transgressing."

In normal words, some think we can know, without relying on revelation, that some things are wrong in themselves. Doc says this is false, and implies that to believe it we need to be followers of Mill.

Hogwash. And moreover, dangerous hogwash.

Posted by: xantippe on May 20, 2008 11:42 PM


I liked Doc's comments but find that line odd, maybe he will clarify further for us as it seemed to be a knock on natural law and to suggest that properly authorized authority has no natural limitations, which contradicts his earlier comments. I think the statement is just unclear on that point.


Wonderful post! keep it up and you will have worked yourself into your next book project "A Conservative History of the Conservative Movement".

Eric L.,

I agreee with your summary of views (Ron Paulians huh?) and tend to call myself a "traditionalist." Like you indicate it resuires unpacking but I think you are spot on and insightful when you suggest that conservatives got away from that (or failed to understand ideas well enough to engage in it). There is no stand in for serious (philosophical) political debate and argument.

Posted by: Bruce Wayne on May 21, 2008 02:36 AM

While the Neocons were definitely the prime instigators of the Iraq invasion, others quickly fell into line either because of 1) party loyalty 2) Presidential loyalty (Bush Cultism) 3) or the false belief that Iraq had WMD and was involved in the 9/11 terror attacks.

Now, even for a "conservative" who doesn't buy into the Neocon agenda of nation-building there were clear prudential reasons to be opposed to the war in Iraq. What type of government could we leave? How much would it cost? What's the exit strategy? Is it possible to create a viable government in Iraq given its sectarian divisions?

All of these considerations should enter into the equation for any "conservative" and if given sufficient reflection should mitigate against the decision to go to war. If Iraq's WMD are the threat just target those installations, and be done with it. There's no reason to launch a permanent occupation of a hostile country just because it may pose a threat.

Besides, if the conflict in conservatism on this issue is a matter of "facts," then we should be able to cite evidence for it. How many conservatives concluded that the war was a mistake after realizing Iraq's WMD were just chimeras?

Bill Buckley, Tucker Carlson, maybe Rod Dreher and a few others, but it's not a significant number. The division is either philosophical or just plain cultist. Do Sean Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter have a discernable foreign policy? Or are they just cheer leaders for Republicans?

The difference is either philosophic, or cultist, but rarely factual.

Posted by: Eric Wilds on May 21, 2008 03:23 AM

Appreciate all the comments here very much...
it's difficult sometimes,to make sense of all this in the context of the last nine years
..decisions are made, mistakes are made...
"there is not a war in history that hasn't been mis-managed along the way"

Wonder what it would be the "death of" if Gore had been in the White House for the last 8 years...

i know i'm off topic here, forgive.

...here's alink to David Horowitz's National Press Club speech on c-cpan.. wondering what folks here think....


i agree with Horowitz..it wasn't about Saddam having weapons... it was about his intention and desire to eventually build them. He had the programs to build them. He'd gone to Korea .. he was sending scud missiles into Israel...
He was a maniac and mass murderer (poison gas, torturer) supported terrorist groups through back channels, fired on our planes, he threw weapons inspectors out in 98...
how do you "contain" someone like that?

and there's Books.. Saddam's Bombmaker,
Brighter Than A Thousand Suns...
and the new one...
Saddam's Secrets
by former Iraqi General, Georges Hormuz Sada

And WHO on Sept. 12 didn't think we'd be attacked again??...
We went on the offensive boys, and we 've kept them runnin.

..and i agree with Mr. Wayne... Dan, your next book should be
"A Conservative History of the Conservative Movement"

Posted by: joe a. on May 21, 2008 04:07 AM

Very good comment Joe. I couldn't agree more. I guess that makes me a "neocon"?


Posted by: Morgan, aka JINGOIST on May 21, 2008 06:26 AM

Dan I wrote this on Jan. 31st at ny blog, JINGOIST'S Corner, in an attempt to stop the McCain onslaught.

--Republican Civil War, A Call To Action!--

Posted by JINGOIST on Thursday, January 31, 2008 7:08:56 PM
A war has been declared on Conservatives. Only this time it's not just the Democrats.
Our Republican party is under ASSAULT from liberals and "moderates", and it's an assault from within. Governors like Florida's Charlie Crist, who's ONLY claim to conservatism is that he's a tax cutter and Governor Arnold "the Terminator" in CA, who has caved to liberals so often that he might as well switch parties are gaining more and more power at the expense of us Reagan conservatives.

To make it even uglier, John McCain and Mike Huckabee are sounding like left-leaning populists on the stump, instead of tax cutting conservative unifiers. Ronald Reagan would weep over the class warfare these two perpetuate!

These RINOS and an entire "herd" of other liberal Republicans are presently attempting what can only be called a "palace coup" by coming out in DROVES to endorse John McCain over Mitt Romney. Mitt's not a perfect Reaganite, but he may be the most talented and qualified Presidential candidate to seek the office in a generation. And for those who are worried about Mitt's conservative credentials, it's instructive to pay attention to his enemies. If the far left and New York Times hates his guts, and George Soros funded websites spend time and energy disseminating misinformation about Mitt, well that sorta tells the story for me. I'm for Mitt!

Here's my proposal. Individuals like us can do very little to change things by ourselves, but if we can get two or more of us--as many as possible--to REALLY beat the drums for Romney and against McCain before Super Tuesday we MAY have some effect on a few states. We must work hard to stop this power grab by liberals in our party. There's no need for profanity against Senator McCain, just expose his liberal record and his backstabbing ways against everything conservative that's happened in the Senate. We can use our own blogs, Frontpage Magazine and other conservative sites to get the word out.

What's at stake? Nothing less than the future of the Republican Party as a home, and refuge for those of us who believe in:
* smaller government and greater freedom
* vigorously defending America against those who want us dead
* a culture of LIFE instead of a culture of death
* defending our borders against an invasion of unassimilated Hispanic hordes
* honoring America as a unique experiment in human freedom
* defending our Constitution against those who view it as a living, breathing document and would use unelected, unaccountable leftist judges to change it on a whim
* the amazing power of free markets and capitalism as the "engine" of our freedom

Let me know what you think. If you like the idea PLEASE contact conservative friends and family and bloggers and run this by them. We have four days to stop this and the "mainstream" media is positively giddy about McCain. We are in a fight for the control of our own party, and so far only the liberals know it! Thanks.


Email It | Print It | Comments (2) | Trackbacks (0) | Flag as Offensive

Posted by: Morgan, aka JINGOIST on May 21, 2008 06:44 AM

First, put me down as agreeing with Joe A., Morgan, and David Horowitz in my interpretation of the facts that led me to support the invasion of Iraq. If new WMDs had been discovered that would have gone a long way to validating our perspective. That they weren't discovered does not invalidate the perspective that I still hold.

Xantippe, Bruce Wayne,

In my original post I do not dispute the existence of "natural law." While I do not know how any postulates of such a law could be logically inferred without first assuming the existence of God, I am open to the possibility.

The key to my assertion is the phrase "that even an otherwise-authorized community must be prevented from transgressing." I will go further and say that while certainly the secularists have no proper jurisdiction to impose their non-theistic, poorly rationalized "natural law" restrictions on my legally independent community, my community has no jurisdiction to impose even our well-thought-out and Revelation-verified restrictions on their legally independent community.

Natural law tells me that killing a fetus for the convenience of the adult female involved is wrong. Natural law tells me that race-based slavery is wrong. In both cases, my assertion above logically leads to the conclusion that my community is still morally wrong to dictate to a community that remains legally independent of us on that issue what tenets of natural law will be imposed. The North had no warrant to end slavery in the South in 1859. The U.S. has no warrant to end forced abortions in China today.

When a secularist judge asserts that his natural law of "equality" demands my community allow same-sex marriages, he is wrong, both about the natural law and about what such a natural law, even if it were a valid law, would authorize him to do.

Posted by: DocMcG on May 21, 2008 03:10 PM

People said the same thing in 1964 when Barry Goldwater was soundly defeated by Lyndon Johnson in the Presidential election.

But 16 years later, the American people elected Ronald Reagan for President for two terms which revitalized the conservative movement.

And in 1994, the conservative movement took control of the House and Senate. Before squandering it in 2000 when George W. Bush became President.

Us conservatives will have our time again. We just need to stick with limited spending, conservative values, and a strong military.

Posted by: anonymous on May 23, 2008 04:15 PM

What values do televangelist Pat Robertson and radio lesbian Tammy Bruce share? Yet, this same word, "conservative," is applied to all of the above.

I think the source of the problem you describe is that political conflict in this country is now articulated as a binary between those who share what Thomas Sowell has called the 'Vision of the Anointed' and a population of the 'benighted' who offer various dissents from that vision. The term 'conservative' is an appellation of convenience for this dissent. Different sectors of the elite and the rank-and-file have different complaints (or different emphases within the same field of complaints), hence the dispute between yourself and (for instance) Jonah Goldberg. Perhaps we all ought to reflect on what our ethical and aesthetical norms are and the degree to which we can form cooperative relationships with others who do not share them but who trust us more than they do the common adversary. "Confederacy of Resistance" might be a more precise description of such a formation than 'conservative movement'.

I will offer a hypothesis that the trouble you have with the Republican Party ultimately stems from the process by which people are recruited into and maintained in the population of political professionals and the extant culture of those professionals (which influences who is willing to come aboard and welcome once aboard). That process and that culture is influenced by public opinion, but elections only really tell you what the public will put up with, not what they desire (if they gave such matters much thought). What you get is a bunch of politicos who enjoy the daily business of legislating, negotiating, and campaigning; who generally do not have some alternative vocation at which they are particularly distinguished; who have certain competitive drives; and who do not share the 'Vision of the Anointed' but have few well-articulated or intently-held opinions about what the world around them ought to look like. The problem is how to get these folks back to the business of selling real estate and filing common-and-garden tort suits and replace them with people who may earn their living in various ways but who have made it their avocation to educate themselves and do some serious thinking about the society in which they live.

Posted by: Art Deco on May 24, 2008 11:22 AM

Hi.. first time I read your blog. I'm impressed by the comments, and am intimidated by them.

I was born in 74. I have no memory of the 1970s as it relates to the nation or culture.

My first political memories are having a great fondness and respect of the Reagan's (I stayed home from 9th grade class in 1989 to listen to his farewell address!)

As a kid I clearly remember the cognitive dissonance of watching/hearing the country and Reagan get trashed by Hollywood yet myself and my 3rd Gen Italian-Amer. family in south side Chicago having great esteem for our nation and Reagan.

I also recall the ever increasing nuttiness from the Middle East, by the time I was in High School, I had investigated various political philosophies and conservatism was my home as well as a support for Israel against the onslaught it faces.

My Conservatism was one of Personal Responsibility and Achievement.

It was the Conservatism of our Federalism as originally conceived in the Constitution

It was the Conservatism of Reagan's military build-up and recovery from the humiliations of the 1970s. (I think itís a shame that this is not a universally held position by all Americans)

And it was also the Conservatism of Liberty vs Tyranny/Collectivism/Slavery [and now Sharia-law/Islam]

I quickly discovered that the Republicans may be the party Conservatives support, but the Republicans are just awful when they actually have power.

Seeing the Contract With America quickly be forgotten was all the evidence I needed. Republican Politicians are totally inadequate to fight the game the Democrats play in Washington, DC.

I donít know why this is... One theory, which I think is too biased to be valid, is that Republican office holders don't go to Washington with the idea in their head that they have to fight for every inch of their agenda and that their opponents have no intention of playing fair. And that they will face the arrows from major sectors of society like MSM and Hollywood. I donít think the personality type has what it takes to survive in that.

Again..that is such a lopsided view of things...but itís my initial working theory.

Conservatives today do stand for ideas.. ideas just as valid as they were in 1980 and 1994 and 2000. Unfortunately, the Republican Party failed miserably in governing by those principles (while claiming that they were). And worst.. the Republican Party has failed in communicating to and educating the American people.

The reason there is so much incoherence about what war we're in is because the President does nothing to define it.

It's as if a few speeches in 2001 and 2003 were the last word and that everyone is going to remember those days.

Trying to defend half the things Bush has done on the war front requires a great deal of projection , role-playing, and mind-reading. And Bush's triangulations of Democrat-associated things has torn asunder the Republican Party nationally just as Clinton's triangulations of Republican things did to the Democrats.

I don't see the need for a Republican Party if it doesn't embrace small-Federal-government Conservatism and quickly.

When having to choose between a Democrat-esque Republican Party and the Democratic Party, why not choose the real thing?

[Oh and the brainwashing of our youth to hate this country is probably the biggest non-money/war-related crisis the country will face in the years to come]

Posted by: Vince P on May 24, 2008 01:57 PM

Great comments Vince! For someone who was "intimidated" by the quality of the other blowhards here, you held your own. :-)

The President has a largely thankless job to do in the prosecution of the war against radical Islam. The "mainstream" media will NEVER give him credit, and the more we succeed against allah's gangsters, the more attention shifts to other problems. It's kinda strange that we seek Republicans to blame for the wayward drift of our party--and there are more than a few to blame--while the Democrats have ENTIRELY betrayed America! It's staggering that a semi-informed populace would reward the Dems and their treasonous behavior by increasing their margins in the Senate and the House. Dan has written books about this subject ("Why The Left Hates America").

I've done my best to bite my tongue about John McCain since he's emerged as the nominee, but he's at the HEART of the problem we face in the Republican Party. For all of President Bush's great leadership in the war on terror and getting tax cuts through, he's NOT a strong, principled, Conservative leader in the Reagan mold. This has left a bit of a "vacuum" in our party and it's been filled by a gang of power-hungry RINOS in the Senate who were far more at ease cutting deals with Ted Kennedy, Chuck Schumer, and Hillary Clinton than they were in getting conservative business done.

Off hand I couldn't give the names of ALL of these liberal Republicans In Name Only (RINOS), but it was a gang LED by John McCain (Juan McAmnesty). It includes such names as Mel Martinez, Charles Grassley, Lindsey Graham (Grahamnesty) and other "Republicans" who only agreed to ONE Conservative principle: To continue war funding for our fight against terrorists.

Hell, McCain and his Senatorial cabal even fought the President's tax cuts with class warfare rhetoric! I was aghast when I heard the clips of John using Democrat language to fight the President's tax cuts! As we speak their are DOZENS of vacancies for Federal Judges who haven't been filled because the "Gang Of 14"--I think that's the name, led by McCain--refused to eliminate the Dems' ability to filibuster judiciary nominees!

So you're left wondering what was the endgame of this liberal Republican "palace coup"? Why did the RINOS totally destroy the conservative agenda from the confines of the Senate? Thanks for asking. :-)

It was all about positioning John McCain for the 2008 Presidential election. He's basically a moderate/liberal deal maker who believes in defending America, even if he DOES want to close down Guantanamo Bay. That's right, John McCain is the BIGGEST reason our conservative agenda has been destroyed and our party is in chaos! It's about HIS power and to hell with the rest of the Republican ticket as far as he's concerned.

Sadly Vince, I believe that a likely McCain Presidency could totally destroy the same Republican Party which Ronaldus Magnus (Reagan) pulled from the abyss. We may even splinter into the Conservative Party and the Republicans, therby handing power to the socialists. We have John McCain to thank for that. G-d help us, we have nominated an imposter! Ugghh!

Morgan Orlins

Posted by: Morgan, aka JINGOIST on May 25, 2008 09:58 AM

Hi Morgan.

You stated my view of John McCain pretty well.

McCain started sabatoguing Bush's 2nd Term right at the start ... Bush was trying to get his Torture Immunity provision through Congress.. and Mr Sanctimonious got involved that... then it was Gitmo..

I have no problem harboring a deep contempt for McCain.. and sadly I must support his campaign because this country has too many global responsiblities and the Democrats must not get in the White House.

A Obama administration will make Carter look like George Washington.

If the Republican Party must be destroyed by having McCain win then so be it.

On the other hand, I want to be upset with Bush.. and I am..but I know he's an honorable person.. and he is the best we have right now.. (isnt' that sad?).. i wish we could have Bush for Bush's 3rd Term.

Posted by: Vince P on May 25, 2008 02:28 PM

Amazing isn't it? Our choices this election are SO bad that you and I are reduced to musing about a third Bush term? LOL!


Posted by: Morgan, aka JINGOIST on May 25, 2008 06:40 PM
Post a comment

Email Address:



Remember info?