First, my thanks to BrianR who inspired this rant…
The national GOP has been anti-conservative and progressing towards leftism during all our lifetimes, at least as far back as Herbert Hoover. The establishment sees the party as a platform for re-election and not much else… to them, the party platform is invoked publicly for the appearance that they stand for something noble — about every four to six years. Window dressing.
As far as their “pledge” to force support for this year’s nominee goes… (intended to benefit Jeb Bush) now being used to further damage Ted Cruz, any pledge assumes that its’ adherents are honorable and will behave honorably one to another. That isn’t to say a contest can’t be rough, that tough truths can’t be spoken, but there’s rough in battle then there’s a line of civility that good people ought never cross. Once Donald Trump began lying, demagogue-ing smearing and viciously slandering fellow candidates, all via the Clinton playbook, attacking adversaries personally to destroy them politically, and of course in the case of Ted Cruz where that included attacking his wife then his father… that in my book negates any pledge dependent on the mutual honor of its’ adherents.
They say that the Party nominee won fair and square, well only so far as the technical/procedural acquisition of delegates was concerned, but mr. trump got there in a particularly despicable, disgraceful and dishonorable way, fitting of the vile left and which should not be rewarded or tolerated by a civil society. Through all of this, the GOP just couldn’t and still can’t get out of its’ own way. That’s what happens when a party rigs their system in an ongoing attempt to nominate establishment Republicans for POTUS and reelect the usual gaggle of incumbent miscreants as a further check against conservative activity — It has the potential to backfire in spectacular fashion. As it has.
The way the GOP establishment handled the process at their Convention, had marks of the pathetic Mitch McConnell and Boehner-proxy Paul Ryan written all over it. Unfortunately, though the party platform was strengthened by delegates, the power of the RNC to piss on us and call it rain was increased two-fold. What we have — hopefully — learned from this election cycle, is that there really isn’t and hasn’t been for a very long time, any credible conservative movement. The so-called Reagan [conservative] Revolution died with the election of George HW Bush and hasn’t been seen since.. only remembered.
We’re living among the very generation Ronald Reagan feared most, that generation of voters so unmoored from the principles of liberty and the Constitution intended to protect it, that the entire Country may be lost to the tyranny and despotism of the hard left. That, is STUPID beyond mere ignorance, it’s the stupid that comes from a morally bankrupt society and will not go away with the election of any one man or woman. We have a systemic problem among the electorate that must be addressed and changed. There’s lots of work ahead.
Categories: Political
Pesky Truth 
Aftershock, We’ll have to disagree about personhood, because in my view, only at first breath is the soul, and thus human life, imparted by God. Breath is the classic definition of birth and death. Without breath there is no volition, which is another key component of human life. I agree that the mother & father contribute all the biologic components of human life, and all the reflex motility that entails; but only God can impart a soul. Not even Satan himself can do that, so a human certainly can’t. That concept would make God the author and instigator of all sin, which I don’t believe.
I only broached the subject because of Dave’s rant. I don’t want to get into a theological debate, though I could. So let’s not go further down that road, requiring the citation of Chapter & Verse, the translation conflicts, etc. I’m quite content for you to believe as you do, as I am secure in my own holdings for myself. I’m not your Pastor, and I certainly am not looking for one either.
We’ll find out who has these technicalities correct in the Hereafter LOL!!
LikeLike
You aren’t disagreeing with me curtmilr, you are disagreeing with the Word of God. You’ve misinterpreted the breath of life, that said, for me it’s not a debatable point. A human being is created at the instant of conception.
LikeLike
Curtmilr — Overall, I agree with your comments responding to Dave. but would like to clear up a misunderstanding most people, secular and of faith, have about human life and the point at which a fetus is a “person”.
The Biblical reference to “the breath of life” has nothing to do with when a human “fetus” becomes a living person. The passages you refer to from Genesis aren’t telling us when a growing baby in the womb becomes a living person. In context, this was an account of how God brought the very first human being into existence, by literally building that person, Adam, from the dust on the ground, from scratch, without the process of intercourse between a male and female and without the womb of a mother.
It’s the account of God molding and perfecting Man in every physical detail, then God reaches the point at which — to separate His new creation from all the other animals – He breathes His spirit and personality into man, filling him with atmosphere of course, but making him a creature unlike any of the animals, giving man through this spiritual exchange the gifts of self awareness and free will – a soul.
When God’s creation process was done and Mankind was born, complete with the means to continue its’ own creation via male/female, husband and wife relationship, it was never repeated in that way again. In other words, God breathed part of Himself into the new creation – Man and Woman – but only did so the first time, from that point on the life of every human being ever to proceed out of that moment, would be as recorded in the DNA, the genetics, stored within each man and woman by God.
Every baby before being born, is complete, initiated by combining parts A and B – i.e; conception. From that moment on a human life is a fully created human being and can be nothing less. Every minute of every human life begins their growth stages in the womb, but that growth stage is no different than growth stages that continue after leaving the womb and until adulthood… it’s all time and experience. There is already a soul, atmosphere is already within the baby via the mother’s blood supply, and with each hour the baby gains awareness of its’ surroundings, well before its’ birth from the womb into the next stages.
LikeLike
Thanks for the cameo, Shocky.
I’m glad I didn’t get a chance to read this until today, because it gave me the chance to read all the comments, too. VERY interesting stuff.
So here’s my $0.02.
First of all, there’s clearly a systemic failure in place. I think that’s indisputable. We all know that, but are all pointing at small pieces of the problem instead of accepting the larger issue. It’s like three blind men feeling an elephant then trying to describe it. One guy feels the trunk and thinks it’s like a snake. One feels a leg and thinks it’s like a tree. One feels its body and thinks it’s like a hippo. All are right and wrong at the very same time.
This schism in the GOP goes all the way back to the ideological warfare between the Goldwater and Rockefeller factions in the ’50s. Hell, historically it really goes all the way back to Garfield, but in the modern era it’s Goldwater v. Rockefeller. Reagan was actually an “outsider”, having lost his first attempt to Ford, a candidate who was as “Establishment” as it got. When Reagan ran in ’80 he was still the “outsider”, his main opponent being Pere Bush, the Establishment guy. In fact it was Bush who coined the term for Reaganomics “voodoo economics”. So none of this is very new, really.
The biggest failure is rooted in a couple of aspects, IMO. The first is the human nature element that it’s WAY easier to “compromise” than to stand your ground and fight for principles. Unfortunately, their opponents, the Dem/socialists, are absolute Energizer Bunnies when it comes to advancing THEIR agenda. Even when they lose, they never give up. They just wait a few figurative minutes then bring the exact same agenda items back to the fight, until they win. And since they’re facing an opponent who’s more than willing to “compromise”, they DO usually ultimately win. Exhibit A: Obamacare.
The other element is the absolute and willful blindness of the GOP to the lessons clearly taught by history. In the modern era, when has the GOP candidate won the biggest victories? When their platform has been firmly rooted in fundamental conservative principles, and I’m specifically referring, once again, to Reagan and his two blow-out landslides, as well as Pere Bush’s when he ran as Reagan II.
For some unfathomable reason the GOP simply refuses to acknowledge and accept that reality. We see the same phenomenon at the state levels, too.
Until those two fatal flaws are cured, I think the GOP will continue to flounder and flail around like a blindfolded kid trying to hit a piñata. Maybe they’ll get lucky once in a while, but for the most part they’ll just keep swinging and getting nothing but air.
LikeLike
Well Brian, I took the weekend off for the most part and didn’t get to read any replies until today. Thank you for your as usual thoughtful insights. The modern GOP/DEM machines have been built, installed and running for more years than any of us are old. With each passing election cycle, the Republican machine has suffered compounding losses of structural integrity, undergone repeated but temporary restorations, and now has become so brittle and waste that there’s no spine left to keep it standing upright. The Grand Old Party is in need of structural replacement, if it’s to have any chance for survival.
Our problem is, that the very place we must look to rebuild a truly Republican Party is from among ourselves and I’m afraid that’s — constitutionally and morally — become a corrupt and dumb’d-down resource from which to draw. The Dem machine thrives on the degradation over time of human nature, and as predictable as nuclear decay, every culture they touch implodes and is captured by the gravity of an ever increasing mass.
The Republican Machine is destroyed by that. because it resists and actively attempts to escape the chains of our nature. To break free the binds is a constant fight, it’s just so much easier to become that which we hate as opposed to fighting it, taking one step forward then two back. Historically, rising above the decadence and self indulgence of the left has always been temporary, more and more of us get pulled back by their irresistible force, the rest of us have to regroup and start the process again. Bottom line, it begins or it ends with us. We are the government we’ve been looking for and the real fight is teaching the next generations of Citizens and voters why our way is the better way. The left promises a Hyper-car to the youth, but always delivers a Yugo. We don’t promise what we can’t deliver, nor what isn’t earned… it’s a tough sell.
LikeLike
Pardon my rudeness, Aftershock, I agree with CW and Garnet – it’s a great rant and you nailed it. What little credibility the RNC might have had prior to this year is completely gone.
LikeLike
Very well said, AfterShock. I totally agree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Excellent rant, aftershock! And all the Gospel truth. We conservatives have been treated by the RNC the way Hillary and the dems treat blacks – throw them a bone every now and then and they’ll stay on the plantation. For me, the PSP (Perpetually Stupid Party) has committed political suicide by actively distancing itself from conservatives. Perhaps it’s time for a real Conservative Party to join the fun.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I used to laugh at people who called Republicans “The Stupid Party.” We were the Party of Ideas. We were the Party of moral clarity, supply-side economics, and SDI. We were the Party of engineers and entrepreneurs. We were the Party of Martin Anderson, Ed Meese, Milton Friedman, Ronald Reagan, Mitch Daniels, and Tom Coburn. We were the Party of the best and the brightest.
But that seems like ancient history, now. The Party of Trump really is The Stupid Party. And that makes the “Stupid Party” charge sting. I can’t laugh at it anymore. There’s too much truth in it.
LikeLike
I do appreciate it garnet92… seems not everyone is on the same page here, but that is what makes life interesting isn’t it? I enjoyed reading your comments!
LikeLike
Oh, pooh. The GOP has had many good, conservative candidates.
This year we had Rubio, Santorum, Huckabee, Walker, Perry, Jindal & Carson — all of them excellent, conservative candidates. We also had a few good moderate-conservatives, less conservative than me, but fine patriots who would have done a pretty good job: Jeb Bush, Carly Fiorina, and John Kasich.
Unfortunately, they all lost.
We had other potential candidates, too, who were superbly qualified, but didn’t run: Gov. Mitch Daniels, Sen. James Inhofe, Sen. Ben Sasse, and Sen. Tom Coburn come to mind (though Coburn’s health is a concern).
Really, we had too many good candidates. They divided the sane, conservative vote, which let the worst candidates dominate, and the worst of the worst win the nomination.
In the past we’ve nominated some very good conservatives: Coolidge, Goldwater, Reagan, George W. Bush. Sometimes they’ve won in the general election, and sometimes they’ve lost. But they were all wonderful, conservative standard-bearers, and if you don’t think so, AfterShock, it means you don’t know what a conservative really is.
LikeLike
Dave, I couldn’t help but notice the absence of one name that I thought would have been prominently included somewhere in one of your “lists.” What does it mean, to leave out Ted Cruz?
LikeLiked by 1 person
That was intentional.
My A-list was of “excellent, conservative candidates:” Cruz didn’t make that list.
Cruz has some things going for him. He is smart, and he’s generally right on the issues.
But he’s a sharp lawyer, and I don’t mean that as a compliment. He has a history of repeated, significant, ethical breaches, from the fake-filibuster and his association with scam artists like Matt Kibbe, Eugene Delgaudio & Matt Hoskins, to his counterfeit history of his role in the Gang of Eight bill, to his campaign’s dirty trick against Carson in Iowa and his subsequent prevaricating about it.
Cruz has been ineffective in the Senate, and if he were President he would have trouble working with Congress, which means he’d not be a very effective conservative leader. Remember that one of the keys to President Reagan’s success was his charm and unfailing personal decency, which won him a lot of support even from Democrats. Rubio might have duplicated that feat, but Cruz certainly could not.
What’s more, Cruz is a weak candidate. He was probably our second-weakest candidate, after Trump. He would have had trouble beating Hillary in November (though he would have had a better chance than Trump).
My B-list was of “good moderate-conservatives, less conservative than me, but fine patriots.” Cruz didn’t make that list, either.
Cruz is vastly superior to Trump or Hillary, but that is faint praise.
LikeLike
Wow, Ted didn’t make your “A-list” of “excellent, conservative candidates.”
And he couldn’t even make your “B-list” of “good moderate-conservatives, less conservative than me, but fine patriots” either. Wow.
If Rubio, Santorum, Huckabee, Walker, Perry, Jindal & Carson were your “A-list” guys, all of those guys were better conservatives than Cruz? Wow.
And, if that weren’t enough, you also maintain that Jeb Bush, Carly Fiorina, and Kasich were also superior to Ted Cruz in meeting your criteria. Wow.
I am practically speechless.
Apparently, we have a much different definition of what defines a good conservative.
Understand that I’m a Texan and voted for Rick Perry every time he ran for Governor. I even supported his failed run for the presidency in 2012, but in my opinion, he is not as conservative as Ted Cruz. Neither is Bobby Jindal, who looked good on paper, but didn’t govern as a conservative when he had the chance.
And Jeb Bush is an “excellent conservative”? Whatever you’re smokin’ is some good chit, pass it around. Was that a mistake? I can’t believe that you could really classify Jeb Bush as a better conservative than Ted Cruz.
And you debase Cruz for a “counterfeit history” relating to the Gang of Eight and his campaign’s “dirty trick” against Carson and Ted lying about it. Dave, with all due respect, I wrote at length, and in detail about that fiasco and his campaign passed along what was reported on CNN (I’ve seen the video and the Tweets) and when CNN later clarified their original reportage, Cruz corrected his staff and apologized to Carson. And the Gang of Eight issue has been thoroughly debunked.
To continue to accuse Ted of lying and ethical breeches tell me that you accepted Trump’s characterizations of Cruz at face value.
As far as Ted’s ineffectual actions in the Senate, we (Texas voters) sent him to Washington to stop Barack Obama and the democrats and he’s done exactly what we wanted – or at least as much as one individual Senator could do.
Ted is not a charming and personable individual, that’s not who he is, but he has proven that he will fight against those who would revise and circumvent our Constitution.
It’s obvious that our opinions of Ted Cruz differ greatly as well as our opinions on Rubio, Perry, Jindal, Carson, and Jeb Bush. It’s also apparent that our definition of a “real” conservative must differ as well.
We can’t even agree on George W. Bush, whom you characterize as a very good conservative. I cherish Dubya, I voted for him as Governor and as president, but he was not a “good” conservative, he was an acceptable conservative.
I guess we can agree to disagree, but you should be aware that others don’t necessarily share your opinions as to who is or isn’t a “good” conservative.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I have no idea what you’re talking about daveburton, either you don’t understand my position or you’re just another GOP/RNC pseudo-conservative hack. In referencing your list of “conservatives”, only two of the GOP nominees since Eisenhower, specifically Goldwater and Reagan, were actual “conservatives” and neither were welcomed by the GOP. Their nominations came over the objections of a GOP establishment that did everything possible to destroy their candidacies. Reagan, to his credit, was undeterred after the GOP engineered his loss to Ford, rising four years later against even greater odds to win two landslide victories based on his unapologetic conservative message.
The GOP/RNC reacted to such real conservatism, especially to Reagan’s, by moving left and ever since then, real conservatives have been spending as much time fighting their own party as they have the Democrat opposition in congress. Moreover, speaking of your list, none of them, not Rubio, Santorum, Huckabee, Walker, Perry, Jindal or Carson; not Jeb, and certainly not Obamacare’s biggest supporter in Ohio, John Kasich, saw fit to carry an un-compromised conservative message into the primary battle; in fact all of them, with the exception of Ted Cruz and to her credit Carly Fiorina, proved to have a point at which they were willing to compromise conservative principles in favor of expediency, not to mention the lure of Presidential power.
That you intentionally left Cruz out, says more about your misunderstanding of conservatism than anything you might ever say about my understanding. You mentioned in your comment that some candidates weren’t “as conservative” as you’d like, which only proves how deep your misunderstanding of conservatism really is. There are no degrees of conservatism. It’s not a buffet where you pick this kind of conservatism, but some or none of that kind, nor to have a choice of regular or diet conservative. Conservatism is and has always been, to know the source of our liberty, and to maintain that liberty by strict adherence to black-letter principles of law as best as a human being can. Your condescending bashing of Ted Cruz exposes you as an establishment Republican, even if you believe otherwise, you’re no conservative. Ted Cruz and Mike Lee have the most reliable conservative voting records in the Senate. Your cynical and smug attempt to dismiss Senator Cruz by pretending you have any idea what’s in his heart, is exactly the mentality that has resulted in the RINO establishment controlling the GOP/DNC for more decades than you’ve been alive.
Here are the fundamentals of being conservative: It begins with the recognition that at the root of our nation’s founding was a belief in the almighty Judeo-Christian God, who bestowed on mankind certain unalienable rights as well as ten simple laws under which we’re free to exercise those rights. That was the basis for the creation of our Republic — The right to life, to liberty and private property. The right to life was first to be mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, because if one hasn’t the unalienable right to life, then there’s no need for any other right. Conservatives pledge to “conserve” the individual right to life, liberty and property, Period! And to that end, a conservative refuses to compromise the Constitutional rule of law, its’ checks and balances which operate under the auspices of God’s law. That’s it. From the entire field of 17 candidates, Ted Cruz is the only candidate that lived up — 100% — to that high calling.
The GOP/RNC are the RPINO, the Party platform is never upheld or fought for once the establishment’s candidates secure election or reelection. With a Republican controlled house for most of Obama’s term and then finally a Senate, the debt racked up by the minority — Democrats — tripled while associated unfunded mandates over the next ten years have exceeded 220 trillion dollars. Funny how when the democrats are in the minority they can get their wildest dreams fulfilled by the GOP, even funnier — not — when the Republicans control both houses and the executive as was the case with GW Bush (a progressive not a conservative by the way), Dems had no problem getting what their hearts desired., half a trillion here, 3/4ths of a trillion there… Republican Party rules are adjusted or ignored altogether by the GOP/RNC, in order to shut out conservative candidates every four years. By your definition of conservatism daveburton, I agree, I couldn’t possibly know what a conservative is because your version is unrecognizable. However, under “the” definition of conservative, the one under which real conservatives operate, I do know you haven’t as yet figured out what it really means to be a conservative.
LikeLike
Anyone who considers GW Bush a true conservative doesn’t really know what he’s talking about. Conservative compared to Gore & Kerry, yes, but compared to the true meaning of the word, small government, low spending, etc., he wasn’t even close!
I’m a Texan, and the only vote I ever gave him was to unseat Ann Richards. I like him as a person, but as a political leader, he sucked overall!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Curt, if you think what’s most important is “small government, low spending,” you are not a conservative. Not much of one, anyhow. You might be a libertarian, but your priorities are far from conservative.
Economics is not at the core of conservatism. America has real economic problems, of course, but America’s biggest problems are not economic, they are moral.
E.g., a baby conceived in America today has only about a 1-in-4 chance of dodging the abortionist’s knife, being born legitimate, and being raised to adulthood in an unbroken home. America has slid so far to the Left that we’re turning into a bigger version of Belgium.
G.W. Bush was on the right side of those issues, and set an example of personal virtue that everyone could respect.
Obama and Hillary are on the wrong side of those issues and Trump doesn’t even seem to care about them. He’s chronically dishonest and amoral. He’s an unapologetic serial adulterer. He’s a con artist who exploits the gullible with scams like Trump University and The Trump Network. He’s an investor who made money by promoting and exploiting vice (at least until the bankruptcy court sold Trump Taj Mahal casino & Scores strip club to Carl Icahn, a few months ago). That’s not “making America Great,” it’s making America weak.
Trump embodies the moral breakdown of America. What madness it would be to choose such a man to address America’s worst problems!
The dimensions of that moral breakdown are terrifying: America’s abortion rate is about 25%, our illegitimacy rate is over 40% and rising, and our divorce rate is nearly 50%.
Those are the sorts of things that trouble conservatives.
Of course, America has economic problems, too, but economic and moral problems are intertwined. E.g., economic programs designed to alleviate child poverty have a history of contributing to family breakdown, by making fathers economically irrelevant — the tragic lesson of LBJ’s failed Great Society.
However, the causation mostly runs the other way: moral failure causes economic weakness. Family breakdown causes poverty more often than vice-versa. Statistically, the increase in poverty is not because intact families are getting poorer, on average. It is because increasing percentages of Americans are not in intact families.
And it’s not just American, either. Europe is on the same destructive spiral:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/31/breakdown-family-blame-90-percent-poverty-world-families-congress
LikeLike
Dave, you don’t get to decide who is conservative and who isn’t or what their values are. You have an opinion, like the rest of us, that is all.
Economics are indeed at the core of conservatism. Government’s failure to spend our money wisely should be reason for firing instantly, instead they’ve become a dynasty unto themselves. Reasons for that are partly their greed and partly voter ignorance.
America’s moral problems are not the government’s concern, or at least they shouldn’t be. And by all means, those issues should not be funded by the government, aka we the people. You and many other people in this country need to get over the notion that our government is elected to police our morals and they’re certainly not supposed to finance them
We can all agree that Trump isn’t the candidate we wanted, but at this point, it’s either elect madness or elect evil. Pick your poison.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Kathy wrote, “America’s moral problems are not the government’s concern, or at least they shouldn’t be.”
Moral decay is an existential threat to our form of government, and to liberty, itself. To say that America’s moral problems are not the government’s concern is to say that liberty and justice are not the government’s concern. Nothing could be more absurd.
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
– John Adams
“The basis of democracy is morality, not majority voting. It is the belief that the majority of people are good and decent and that there are moral standards which come not from the State but from elsewhere.”
– Margaret Thatcher
“It is the manners and spirit of a people which preserve a republic in vigour. A degeneracy in these is a canker which soon eats to the heart of its laws and constitution.”
– Thomas Jefferson
“Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith.”
– Alexis de Tocqueville
“It is the duty of nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favour.”
– George Washington
It is true that the best and most conservative President of my lifetime, President Reagan, also happened to be the only trained economist to serve as President, and, in fact, perhaps America’s only economically literate President. But that doesn’t make economics the linchpin of conservatism.
Other than the general principle that free enterprise is morally superior to Soviet-style central planning, there’s nothing about economics which is fundamental to conservatism. The dismal science is, at its core, a derivative of sociology. It runs in fads. One decade all the conservatives are Adam Smith classicists. The next decade we’er all Chicago school monetarists. The next decade we’re all supply-siders. None of those are fundamental to conservatism.
What defines conservatism is moral values: the elevation of virtues like honesty, bravery, loyalty, industriousness, patriotism, compassion, selflessness, frugality, faithfulness, reverence, trustworthiness, responsibility, etc.
What does not define conservatism is materialism. Sure, we’d all like to pay less taxes. But that’s a second-tier issue, to a true conservative.
A litmus test for conservatism is abortion. If you aren’t troubled by the fact that 1/4 of all babies conceived in America die by “choice,” you’re no conservative.
Another litmus test is PEPFAR. Thanks to the leadership of NC Sen. Jesse Helms and President George W. Bush, it has saved millions of lives, a disproportionate percentage of them children. It has helped to substantially slow the worldwide spread of HIV/AIDS. But it has also cost American taxpayers over $60 billion.
A conservative does not resent that financial burden. Do you?
LikeLike
Dave, we could argue this all day, but I find that a more worthwhile and far more enjoyable task would be talking to a fence post.
Conservatism is an umbrella that covers a lot of viewpoints and spans many levels – it is not defined by just one single set of policies. Perhaps I’m being absurd again, but unless you’re God Almighty, you don’t get to sit in judgment of me or anyone else on this site as to our politics.
Ditto Garnet’s response to you regarding Ted Cruz.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I have no idea what you’re talking about daveburton, either you don’t understand my position or you’re just another GOP/RNC pseudo-conservative hack. In referencing your list of “conservatives”, only two of the GOP nominees since Eisenhower, specifically Goldwater and Reagan, were actual “conservatives” and neither were welcomed by the GOP. Their nominations came over the objections of a GOP establishment that did everything possible to destroy their candidacies. Reagan, to his credit, was undeterred after the GOP engineered his loss to Ford, rising four years later against even greater odds to win two landslide victories based on his unapologetic conservative message.
The GOP/RNC reacted to such real conservatism, especially to Reagan’s, by moving left and ever since then, real conservatives have been spending as much time fighting their own party as they have the Democrat opposition in congress. Moreover, speaking of your list, none of them, not Rubio, Santorum, Huckabee, Walker, Perry, Jindal or Carson; not Jeb, and certainly not Obamacare’s biggest supporter in Ohio, John Kasich, saw fit to carry an un-compromised conservative message into the primary battle; in fact all of them, with the exception of Ted Cruz and to her credit Carly Fiorina, proved to have a point at which they were willing to compromise conservative principles in favor of expediency, not to mention the lure of Presidential power.
That you intentionally left Cruz out, says more about your misunderstanding of conservatism than anything you might ever say about my understanding. You mentioned in your comment that some candidates weren’t “as conservative” as you’d like, which only proves how deep your misunderstanding of conservatism really is. There are no degrees of conservatism. It’s not a buffet where you pick this kind of conservatism, but some or none of that kind, nor to have a choice of regular or diet conservative. Conservatism is and has always been, to know the source of our liberty, and to maintain that liberty by strict adherence to black-letter principles of law as best as a human being can. Your condescending bashing of Ted Cruz exposes you as an establishment Republican, even if you believe otherwise, you’re no conservative. Ted Cruz and Mike Lee have the most reliable conservative voting records in the Senate. Your cynical and smug attempt to dismiss Senator Cruz by pretending you have any idea what’s in his heart, is exactly the mentality that has resulted in the RINO establishment controlling the GOP/DNC for more decades than you’ve been alive.
Here are the fundamentals of being conservative: It begins with the recognition that at the root of our nation’s founding was a belief in the almighty Judeo-Christian God, who bestowed on mankind certain unalienable rights as well as ten simple laws under which we’re free to exercise those rights. That was the basis for the creation of our Republic — The right to life, to liberty and private property. The right to life was first to be mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, because if one hasn’t the unalienable right to life, then there’s no need for any other right. Conservatives pledge to “conserve” the individual right to life, liberty and property, Period! And to that end, a conservative refuses to compromise the Constitutional rule of law, its’ checks and balances which operate under the auspices of God’s law. That’s it. From the entire field of 17 candidates, Ted Cruz is the only candidate that lived up — 100% — to that high calling.
The GOP/RNC are the RPINO, the Party platform is never upheld or fought for once the establishment’s candidates secure election or reelection. With a Republican controlled house for most of Obama’s term and then finally a Senate, the debt racked up by the minority — Democrats — tripled while associated unfunded mandates over the next ten years have exceeded 220 trillion dollars. Funny how when the democrats are in the minority they can get their wildest dreams fulfilled by the GOP, even funnier — not — when the Republicans control both houses and the executive as was the case with GW Bush (a progressive not a conservative by the way), Dems had no problem getting what their hearts desired., half a trillion here, 3/4ths of a trillion there… Republican Party rules are adjusted or ignored altogether by the GOP/RNC, in order to shut out conservative candidates every four years. By your definition of conservatism daveburton, I agree, I couldn’t possibly know what a conservative is because your version is unrecognizable. However, under “the” definition of conservative, the one under which real conservatives operate, I do know you haven’t as yet figured out what it really means to be a conservative.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Dave, Dave, . . . where to begin?
First, the field we call “economics” has historically been known as “political economics” for the obviously stated reasons, the politicians have out sized impact on economic policy by controlling the central banks.
Second, morality. What you deem to be “moral” is entirely different from what a Buddhist, Taoist, Muslim, atheist, Hindu, or Rastafarian, etc., might consider valid. This is not to mention the cafeteria of choices amongst self-identified Christians! Personally, I consider you to be immoral by trying to force your narrow view of morality on me!
While we agree, with our Founders, that our system was designed for a moral and well educated populace, even they did not presume to dictate a definition of said morality, other than on a State by State basis.
Third, you are factually wrong about Reagan being the only trained economist to serve as President. In the 20th century, elected Presidents Herbert Hoover, Reagan, and GW Bush all had degrees in economics. They each promoted differing economic policies with widely varied results. This indicates that book learning doesn’t always translate to good policy, just as doctrinaire “morality” can end up being tyrannical. Hitler was a health nut, pro-abortion, and anti-gay, after all! Hmmm!
Fourth, conservatism is a political philosophy, generally speaking. Because the manner in which most governmental policy interfaces with the populace is thru taxes, regulation, and spending, political economy it IS! Depending on the aspect of political philosophy you are engaging on, a flaming Libertarian is “conservative” in matters of preserving individual choice. An abortionist is likewise “conservative” regarding his freedom of action. You may be “conservative” by abstaining from doing drugs and heterosexual sex outside marriage. Maybe. LOL!
Fifth, abortion, for or against, is not the valid purview of our national government. It should have been left solely to the States.
Unlike many here, I quarrel with where the beginning point of human life is. Biologic life begins at conception, by any understanding. But is biologic life “HUMAN LIFE”?? I say NO! For until God, the Father, in breathes a soul to a baby born from the mother’s womb, then, like Adam, it may be flesh, made from the dust of the ground to which it will return, but it is not a human being with a soul! According to Genesis, Adam became a living soul at that point, not before!
Does this mean I am pro abortion? HEAVENS NO! I despise the practice! But I could understand, though not necessarily agree with, a woman’s decision to terminate a pregnancy, with or without the biological father’s consent, for a variety of unnamed reasons. It is a VERY troubling issue! I would much prefer she choose adoption, and damned sure don’t want tax monies paying for it! EVER!! But, I suppose you would like having all young girls forced to wear steel chastity belts until marriage. If not, honor killings?? NOT GOING TO HAPPEN in the Land of Liberty, which can unfortunately turn into license without proper moral training by parents!
Sixth, as to PEPFAR, the intent of the program, from a human viewpoint of limiting pain & suffering, is admirable. But is is NOT an area of policy that the US government should have anything to do with, and is strictly unconstitutional, thus absolutely NOT conservative. Just another GWB big government spending program! No form of charity is constitutional, and was viewed that way for well over 100 years until the poison of Progressivism raised its ugly, satanic head!
Frankly, Dave, you’re far from any definition of conservative I’m familiar with. You are for all kinds of government meddling and unconstitutional spending, yet demand they exercise authority over matters of individual freedom. LIBERTY, the Founders called it! I assume you consider yourself a Christian, and I would never presume to contradict that stance. Yet you definitely violate the explicitly stated command to “Judge not, lest you be judged!”. In my theological understanding, any time there is a simple declarative stated, THAT is the rule. Any other scriptural teaching that might be construed differently are merely modulations of that rule, to recognize the multiplicity of choices the human condition confronts us with.
In olden times, a barber was considered to be a doctor of sorts. In like manner, I’ll consider you to be a “conservative”, though you have no earthly idea what the word even means!
LikeLike
Curtmilr — Overall, I agree with your comments responding to Dave. but would like to clear up a misunderstanding most people, secular and of faith, have about human life and the point at which a fetus is a “person”.
The Biblical reference to “the breath of life” has nothing to do with when a human “fetus” becomes a living person. The passages you refer to from Genesis aren’t telling us when a growing baby in the womb becomes a living person. In context, this was an account of how God brought the very first human being into existence, by literally building that person, Adam, from the dust on the ground, from scratch, without the process of intercourse between a male and female and without the womb of a mother.
It’s the account of God molding and perfecting Man in every physical detail, then God reaches the point at which — to separate His new creation from all the other animals – He breathes His spirit and personality into man, filling him with atmosphere of course, but making him a creature unlike any of the animals, giving man through this spiritual exchange the gifts of self awareness and free will – a soul.
When God’s creation process was done and Mankind was born, complete with the means to continue its’ own creation via male/female, husband and wife relationship, it was never repeated in that way again. In other words, God breathed part of Himself into the new creation – Man and Woman – but only did so the first time, from that point on the life of every human being ever to proceed out of that moment, would be as recorded in the DNA, the genetics, stored within each man and woman by God.
Every baby before being born, is complete, initiated by combining parts A and B – i.e; conception. From that moment on a human life is a fully created human being and can be nothing less. Every minute of every human life begins their growth stages in the womb, but that growth stage is no different than growth stages that continue after leaving the womb and until adulthood… it’s all time and experience. There is already a soul, atmosphere is already within the baby via the mother’s blood supply, and with each hour the baby gains awareness of its’ surroundings, well before its’ birth from the womb into the next stages.
LikeLike