Conservatives Are You There?

[Hap]

http://www.talk.newsweek.com/politics/default.asp?item=512417

I found this article very interesting because in it the author discusses some things of which I know little.

Especially the Baker/Scrowcroft arm of the GOP.  I know who both Brent Scrowcroft and James Baker are.  I do not know what issues their "wing" considers important, and how they differientate themselves from others within the GOP.

Also, maybe about a 1/3 of the way through, the author quotes someone at the recent conference (I forgot the name) saying that in the opinion of the fellow speaking none of the GOP front runners for President are Conservatives.  

If he means in a Barry Goldwater sense, I understand.  And for anyone who is remotely interestest in this thread, reading Goldwater's speech when he accepted the GOP's nomination for President, is a must.  The main issues he highlighted is what "conservative" has meant and still means for me today.

Ronald Regan is evoked and referenced in the article as well.  There's quite a difference between the two men, Goldwater and Regan.  When I hear "Conservative" I think of Goldwater before Regan.

I'm sure a 25 year old would have a different take than this 50 year old.  

Even so, I think the above article raises some really good discussion points.

Over the past 15 years, to my way of thinking, what has passed for Conservativism is "anti democratic" spleen.  Especially the TV/Radio bowling for dollars phenomenon which looks like it will outlast me.  Full of Sound and Fury but Signifying Nothing.  

There's a vast difference between "we're best because those guys are 'tards," and "we've got better answers because our ideas are superior."

Also, on Real Clear Politics, where the link above will take you (or at least that's where I got it), you can read Bill Buckley's piece on Arthur Schlesinger who recently died.  A good piece.

All the Best,

hap

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by Hap
http://www.talk.newsweek.com/politics/default.asp?item=512417

Over the past 15 years, to my way of thinking, what has passed for Conservativism is "anti democratic" spleen.  Especially the TV/Radio bowling for dollars phenomenon which looks like it will outlast me.  Full of Sound and Fury but Signifying Nothing.  


 

I havent read the article yet. And this is

not intended as a slap at your comment but

The exact same thing can be said in reverse

Each side doesnt nothing but demonise the other anymore.

Problem is there are way way WAY too many brainwashed and brain dead people that actually buy into their spew

[lazs2]

You might want to realize that political parties shift.

All democrats are not pointy hood KKK members anymore for instance...  George Wallace was a very good representitive of the democratic party back in the 60's.

A Goldwater conservative would be a good thing today.  The KKK democrat not so much...

lazs

[bj229r]

Especially the Baker/Scrowcroft arm of the GOP. I know who both Brent Scrowcroft and James Baker are. I do not know what issues their "wing" considers important, and how they differientate themselves from others within the GOP.

I'm not aware that either of them is relevant in the GOP...though I'm sure the two moderates from the Bush 1 administration  might SEEM such to a writer for a left wing rag like Newsweek. As for Cheny being 'embattled'...not sure what is the basis for that--he made some very basic, even-handed statements about the views/actions of the Dem leadership, and Pelosi got her panties in a wad--to the extent that she called Bush and complained

At any rate, there ARE no conservatives in the presidential picture (Duncan Hunter hasn't a prayer, and though Newt is a prolific orator, he has too much baggage) It's prolly gonna be Giuiliani, whose pulling away from McCain, who is finding out that being loved by the media for poking his own party in the eye on every major issue of the day (He was even against TAX cuts:O ) Doesnt garner support within the GOP. Not sure how many conservatives will vote for a social liberal like Rudy--one thing about him, he is at least consistent in his views, unlike the others. The man doesn't apologize for who he is

[bsdaddict]

Originally posted by bj229r
I'm not aware that either of them is relevant in the GOP...though I'm sure the two moderates from the Bush 1 administration  might SEEM such to a writer for a left wing rag like Newsweek. As for Cheny being 'embattled'...not sure what is the basis for that--he made some very basic, even-handed statements about the views/actions of the Dem leadership, and Pelosi got her panties in a wad--to the extent that she called Bush and complained

At any rate, there ARE no conservatives in the presidential picture (Duncan Hunter hasn't a prayer, and though Newt is a prolific orator, he has too much baggage) It's prolly gonna be Giuiliani, whose pulling away from McCain, who is finding out that being loved by the media for poking his own party in the eye on every major issue of the day (He was even against TAX cuts:O ) Doesnt garner support within the GOP. Not sure how many conservatives will vote for a social liberal like Rudy--one thing about him, he is at least consistent in his views, unlike the others. The man doesn't apologize for who he is

both Rudy and McCain are basically pro-war.  didn't running pro-war candidates lose Congress for the GOP last time?  either would lose to Obama and would be seen as "more of the same from the GOP".   IMHO, Ron Paul is just the ticket to beating Obama, as he has an undisputable track record of sticking to his guns and being loyal to the constitution.

[midnight Target]

Originally posted by lazs2
You might want to realize that political parties shift.

All democrats are not pointy hood KKK members anymore for instance...  George Wallace was a very good representitive of the democratic party back in the 60's.

A Goldwater conservative would be a good thing today.  The KKK democrat not so much...

lazs

There was a huge difference between the Southern Democrats (Dixiecrats) and the rest of the Democratic party. But you probably knew this already.

[bj229r]

Originally posted by bsdaddict
both Rudy and McCain are basically pro-war.  didn't running pro-war candidates lose Congress for the GOP last time?  either would lose to Obama and would be seen as "more of the same from the GOP".   IMHO, Ron Paul is just the ticket to beating Obama, as he has an undisputable track record of sticking to his guns and being loyal to the constitution.

'Pro-war' (interpreted by me as 'don't surrender and leave') , is the ONLY conservative trait McSain has shown, and he's waffled a little bit on THAT of late. IMO, many of the candidates who lost in 2006, lost because they failed to get Republicans who voted for them in the past to vote for them again---too worried about being everything to everybody, which took their base for granted) As I said before, at least Rudy is consistent in his views, most of which ARE conservative--as conservative as one can BE in New York City.

(and let's get real, a president isnt going to make abortion illegal, no matter WHAT he tries to do--the best he could accomplish is create a S.C. which would repeal the very-flawed Roe-v-Wade decision, which would create a yes-no vote in all 50 states, At least THAT will have been decided by the voters)

[Hap]

Thanks Midnight.  I was going to say.

And for those who want to know, Google Hubert Humphrey's 1948 speech at the Democratic Convention (I think it was there).

Which flew in the Dixiecrats face big time.

All the Best,

hap

[lukster]

Originally posted by Hap
Thanks Midnight.  I was going to say.

And for those who want to know, Google Hubert Humphrey's 1948 speech at the Democratic Convention (I think it was there).

Which flew in the Dixiecrats face big time.

All the Best,

hap

Dixiecrats? Claiming the south was/is more racist than the north is to ignore existing segregation (not official policy of course) in northern cities like Detroit, Chicago, New York and dozens of others. At least in the south we recognize hypocrisy when we see it.

[Hap]

Right.

[midnight Target]

Originally posted by lukster
Dixiecrats? Claiming the south was/is more racist than the north is to ignore existing segregation (not official policy of course) in northern cities like Detroit, Chicago, New York and dozens of others. At least in the south we recognize hypocrisy when we see it.

True enough. The most racially divided city i've ever been in is/was Chicago.

[T0J0]

What smaller then a Gieco insurance commercial midget?

The todo list of an elected democrat!

[Hap]

Originally posted by lukster
Claiming the south was/is more racist than the north is

Lukster,

Tell me how you want to measure please?  

E.g., by aera, population, influence, and or shared social values that make a thing/idea/event so in the minds of those sharing values?

Oh, and what time frame too.


Regards,

hap

[crowMAW]

I think both Mitt and McCain are both Goldwater Republicans at heart...however, they have had to publicly flip-flop on some personal freedom issues to appease the Religious Right...whereas Goldwater refused to cave.

[Yeager]

The South shall rise again!