Rick Santorum is resurrected as the conservative alternative

[Guest Lester Weevils]

I would. How in the world could a libertarian vote for a Democrat? I mean, Republicans these days aren't much better, but for the most party they are not openly socialist like the Dems. Libertarianism is about as far from socialism as you can get.

Hi nicemac

Two extremes which are potential libertarian party converts--

A. Some people are very concerned with economic issues and do not care about social issues-- "As long as tax is low I don't care about [fill in the blank] personal liberties issue."

B. Other folks-- "Within reason I don't care about the tax, as long as the gov does not infringe [fill in the blank] personal liberties issue."

Person A would fit comfortably in the R party and not even get annoyed at the most-narrow-minded-meddling people who make up at least 20 percent of the party. Because he doesn't care. As long as tax is low he doesn't mind that Big Brother knows good enough to keep him from buying beer on sunday or whatever. However, Person A would eventually get real peeved when the R's can't even balance a budget.

Person B would fit comfortably in the D party and not even get annoyed by the nuttiest socialists as long as nobody messes with individual liberties. Sure at some point if the socialists raise tax way crazy, or run incredible deficits, he might wake up, but a percent or two on tax he doesn't pay much attention to. However, Person B would get increasingly annoyed that the D's can't even get the individual liberties stuff right.

If you can wake Person A up to start caring a little about individual liberties and convince him libertarians have a better plan than R's for economic freedoms, you have a potential convert.

If you can wake Person B up to start caring a little about economic freedoms, and convince him libertarians have a better plan than D's for personal freedoms, you have a potential convert.

So when the R party swings real hard-core social conservative, it looks real ugly to some people and they can't stomach it enough to associate with the R's even if they like the R economic promises a little better. So those folks are either gonna be blue dog democrats or libertarians even if they mostly agree with R's on the economic issues.

Edited February 10, 2012 by Lester Weevils

[K191145]

As much as I want to agree (and I understand the sentiment), all that tactic will accomplish is to put BHO right back in the White House-and that will be really bad for the country.

It's going to be a contest between Nikita Khrushchev Obama and Mikhail Gorbachev Rino, I guess i'll have to choose Gorbachev as the least dangerous of the two socialists. Kieefer is right, it's about stopping, a RINO administration is better than the current iron curtain administration.

[Guest nicemac]

Person B would fit comfortably in the D party and not even get annoyed by the nuttiest socialists as long as nobody messes with individual liberties. Sure at some point if the socialists raise tax way crazy, or run incredible deficits, he might wake up, but a percent or two on tax he doesn't pay much attention to. However, Person B would get increasingly annoyed that the D's can't even get the individual liberties stuff right.

How much worse can deficits get? I mean, we continually set new records every time a report comes out…

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Y'all are just mincing words talking about what a conservative is, or what the media tells you.

All a conservative is, unless you tack a "qualifier" on like social or fiscal in front of it, is a

person who really wants a smaller, less intrusive government, a nation of laws, utilizing the

Constitution as principle. All a social or fiscal conservative is is one who focuses on one of

those views more than another.

Barry Goldwater is the best example of a "conservative" since the sixties and depending on

which source for your gossip, wikicrap or the mainstream media, you will probably see his

life torn to shreds as a fascist or the like. Ronald Reagan was a conservative, also. It's

funny to see the views taken about him yes, even on here. A lot of the time people tend

to confuse one's actions with the goal and the achievement. They tend to blame other parts

of a term by their own interpretation of events and not what actually cost what at the time.

You can have a Democrat House and/or Senate to deal with and it will cost somewhere else.

That doesn't diminish your conservatism. It does skew things by how they are represented

and how you choose to digest your information. You can't just wish deal making away. It's

always been there and will always be there.

The Rockefeller(progressive) side of the Republican Party is not conservative and never

have been and they are the target of the Tea Party.

One thing I see as the real problem is that people look too short-sided with their opinions,

views and education. They seem to be changing their minds on something every day. This

or that, it doesn't matter, and we have let evil incremently in the door to rape and pillage

the Constitution and the country to the point of maybe no return. I don't know how to fix it.

Maybe some of you internet geniuses can fix this, but I doubt it. You think too fast to the

point that I can't keep up with you. I said something a while back: reason and logic, instead

of emotions make good laws. Every time I turn around emotions seem to win.

The Tea Party can prevail in the arena of ideas for this country if enough people put their

brains back in their skulls and start fighting for that change, whether it be changing the

Republican Party or forming a new one. I disagree with Clint Eastwood on one thing. We're

in the third quarter and twenty points behind, and if we don't get off our asses and take our

country back, we're doomed as a country.

Also, OS said something about the presidential and senate elections. He's right. We really

dropped the ball and allowed an amendment screw us out of a true constitutional republic.

We need that back.

Now, we just need a real conservative. There isn't one running, yet. This time it has to be

Anyone but Obama until we grow up and put the Constitution back where it belongs.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

How much worse can deficits get? I mean, we continually set new records every time a report comes out…

Hi nicemac

I'm not saying that people who value personal freedoms more than economic freedoms are wise to ignore the deficit. Its just the way some folks are, They have half the puzzle figured out (IMO) and are not our enemies. I'm talking about people who are neither pro- or anti- socialism. They just happen to be pro-personal liberties above other considerations. If the R's can do a better job than D's in pushing personal liberties then R's can woo those folks regardless of economic policies. Otherwise, the D's get em by default. IOW, the R party has to swing more libertarian to widen the base in that direction.

Y'all are just mincing words talking about what a conservative is, or what the media tells you.

All a conservative is, unless you tack a "qualifier" on like social or fiscal in front of it, is a

person who really wants a smaller, less intrusive government, a nation of laws, utilizing the

Constitution as principle. All a social or fiscal conservative is is one who focuses on one of

those views more than another.

Hi 6.8 AR

I've got absolutely no beef with social conservatives until they want to pass law making everybody live like they think everybody should live. Sadly, they tend to do that rather routinely, which puts me at loggerheads with em. If they would just be as hard-tail social conservative as they please and not try to pass laws making others behave the same way, live and let live. In that case I'd be fine with em. They can even make loud noise thumping bibles in the wee hours on a week night-- As long as they stay on their side of the property line, I an't calling in a noise complaint! Live and let live.

Ferinstance I really like Michelle Bachmann, but she doesn't want across-the-board smaller gov. She wants to reduce gov in certain economic areas, while growing gov in the regulation of people's personal lives.

Progressives want to grow gov one way, social conservatives want to grow gov another. Neither is "small gov". If conservative means small gov, then social conservatives don't pass the test.

Barry Goldwater is the best example of a "conservative" since the sixties and depending on

which source for your gossip, wikicrap or the mainstream media, you will probably see his

life torn to shreds as a fascist or the like. Ronald Reagan was a conservative, also. It's

funny to see the views taken about him yes, even on here. A lot of the time people tend

to confuse one's actions with the goal and the achievement. They tend to blame other parts

of a term by their own interpretation of events and not what actually cost what at the time.

You can have a Democrat House and/or Senate to deal with and it will cost somewhere else.

That doesn't diminish your conservatism. It does skew things by how they are represented

and how you choose to digest your information. You can't just wish deal making away. It's

always been there and will always be there.

Barry was a proto-libertarian. I really liked Goldwater.

He was painted as a crazy right-winger, but really was just a libertarian at heart. Robert Heinlein was also painted as a crazy right-winger, when the libertarian label was the right one.

Goldwater moderated some of his social views over time, though he always had social libertarian tendencies. He was best buds with George McGovern later in life, and peed-off the social conservative no end later in his career by siding with democrats on personal liberty issues. George McGovern was painted as crazy left-wing, but they had quite a bit in common (along with significant differences). McGovern wanted smaller gov at least in regulation of people's private lives, though I think Goldwater was more balanced wanting to slash gov in both economic and personal freedom realms.

This article is slanted from the NYTimes, but I don't see it entirely inaccurate re Goldwater--

http://www.nytimes.c...water-obit.html

Goldwater compromised with the New Right over abortion, and tempered his libertarian opposition to any government restrictions on abortion when he ran for his last Senate term in 1980. And in 1993 he flatly supported President Clinton's promise to halt the exclusion of homosexuals from the armed services, infuriating many onetime allies.

Goldwater's philosophy was never more simply put than in his first book, "Conscience of a Conservative," published in 1960. He wrote: "I have little interest in streamlining government or making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them."

[OngoingFreedom]

Santorum has my vote.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Further beating a dead horse: If Goldwater was a "true conservative" then it may be instructive some of Goldwater's interaction/opinion of the social conservatives--

http://en.wikipedia....Barry_Goldwater

By the 1980s, with Ronald Reagan as president and the growing involvement of the religious right in conservative politics, Goldwater's libertarian views on personal issues were revealed; he believed that they were an integral part of true conservatism. Goldwater viewed abortion as a matter of personal choice, not intended for government intervention.

As a passionate defender of personal liberty, he saw the religious right's views as an encroachment on personal privacy and individual liberties. In his 1980 Senate reelection campaign, Goldwater won support from religious conservatives but in his final term voted consistently to uphold legalized abortion and, in 1981, gave a speech on how he was angry about the bullying of American politicians by religious organizations, and would "fight them every step of the way".

After his retirement in 1987, Goldwater described the Arizona Governor Evan Mecham as "hardheaded" and called on him to resign, and two years later stated that the Republican party had been taken over by a "bunch of kooks". In a 1994 interview with the Washington Post the retired senator said, "When you say "radical right" today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican party and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye."

In response to Moral Majority founder Jerry Falwell's opposition to the nomination of Sandra Day O'Connor to the Supreme Court, of which Falwell had said, "Every good Christian should be concerned", Goldwater retorted: "Every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the ass." (According to John Dean, Goldwater actually suggested that good Christians ought to kick Falwell in the "nuts", but the news media "changed the anatomical reference.")

Some of Goldwater's statements in the 1990s aggravated many social conservatives. He endorsed Democrat Karan English in an Arizona congressional race, urged Republicans to lay off Bill Clinton over the Whitewater scandal, and criticized the military's ban on homosexuals: "Everyone knows that gays have served honorably in the military since at least the time of Julius Caesar." He also said, "You don't have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to be able to shoot straight." A few years before his death he went so far as to address the unprincipled establishment "republicans", "Do not associate my name with anything you do. You are extremists, and you've hurt the Republican party much more than the Democrats have."

In 1996, he told Bob Dole, whose own presidential campaign received lukewarm support from conservative Republicans: "We're the new liberals of the Republican party. Can you imagine that?" In that same year, with Senator Dennis DeConcini, Goldwater endorsed an Arizona initiative to legalize medical marijuana against the countervailing opinion of social conservatives.

[kieefer]

The discussion of Conservatism can be heard from several prominent speakers at the;

http://cpac2012.conservative.org/

So far I've listened to Newt and Allen West, both were great.

Here's Ricks - http://www.publiusforum.com/2012/02/10/rick-santorum-at-cpac/

Edited February 11, 2012 by kieefer