AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

The Oct 2 rally


http://mediagallery.usatoday.com/Rally-offers-%27antidote%27-to-Tea-Party_/G1786,A7676



The Beck rally

http://www.therightscoop.com/photos-glenn-becks-restoring-honor-rally




If Beck had 500,000 then there must have been 250,000 this last week.
I am guessing it is closer to the 87,000 for Beck and 40-50,000 for last week.

Are you out of your mind?

John Bolton couldn't get elected president in this country in a million years. A billion. Not only was he a member of Bush's team - a death-knell there alone - his attitude and demeanor are frequently unbecoming of such an office, and he really is nothing more than a petty scare-artist, carefully stoking the fears that people like you harbor towards Islaam, all for his personal and political gain.

You've written a bunch of stuff I disagree with over the years, and that's understandable. But this is stupid. You should know better.

Cycloptichorn

I don't think it's artistry and stoking. I think he's scared. Just as people like Phoenix are scared. I think Bush was scared. If enough scared folks vote out of fear (as they did in 2004) then he could be elected.

I am a conservative, and have proudly said so, but if I had a choice, the man I would support is a liberal democrat.
His name is Evan Bayh, and he was a US senator from Indiana.
I have said this before, so its nothing new.

I disagree with him on many issues, but have met him several times, and its all of the intangibles that would make me want to vote for him.
I trust him, and that is important.
Also, he says what he thinks without beating around the bush.
When he talks to you he looks you in the eye, and he isnt afraid to listen to people that disagree with him.

Even though he is not running, and has retired from politics, he would be my first choice, and the party he is a member of is not important to me.

Evan Bayh, US senator from Indiana, is at best a "go along to get along."

Leftist liberals seek to secure their right to steal wealth others earn.

Rightist liberals seek to secure their right to retain wealth they earn.

What to you is an acceptable compromise?

You are with the group that skim the profits of coprporatios. The Wall Street crowd and CEOs have ripped off the public long enough.

The rally this weekend was far and away too last minute. I had to work both days, not that I could have afforded to go. Some people I know, who were all working, expressed disappointment at not having been able to make the trek. Besides, there were many very liberal festivities in my neighborhood, including a very homemade style agricultural and crafts festival in Orange, MA and Shelter Sunday in Northampton, MA. Both are annual events with huge followings.

The federal government and the leftist liberal crowd have skimmed the profits of corporations and have ripped off the public long enough.

That is right GWB skimmed all surplus to go into Gulf War II to settle a family vendetta.

I have been away from this forum for a few days, and upon just beginning to read a few posts, this one caught my eye, ican. I agree, and frankly I am surprised by mysteryman's post, wherein he claimed his first choice would be Evan Bayh. I have read his singing of praises of Bayh before, but for crying out loud, the man is a Democrat that votes the party line on virtually all the liberal agenda. I would say this to mm, would you vote for the get-away car driver for the bank robber on the basis that the driver is a nice guy, likeable, and looks you in the eye when he tells you what he is doing?

One thing people need to learn about politics, it sounds good to say you vote for the person not the party, but the reality of it is that you do vote for party policies, its a fact whether you wish to acknowledge it or not. The first thing the Democrats do with any new Congressman is to take them out behind the woodshed and give them a good talking to, including vote our agenda or else. Sure, there might be some minor divergence, but face it, if you don't support Democratic policies, first of all it makes no sense to belong to the Democratic Party, and secondly they will not last in the party. Ask Joe Lieberman, an excellent example of a guy that was the Democratic Party vp candidate not that long ago, then quit their lousy party in a few short years. The truth is the Democratic Party is not influenced at all by an Evan Bayh, it is controlled by the likes of liberal extremist groups and financial backers like George Soros. If mm is any kind of a good conservative, he should not vote for any Democrat for national office, including Evan Bayh. Bayh might be one of the more decent guys in that party, but what the country sorely needs is a complete change to conservative leadership, which will not be found in the Democratic Party.

That is right BHO skimmed all tax receipts to go into ObamaCare, Stimulus and TARP expansion to settle a family vendetta: "God damn America!".

Wealth redistribution is a big part of what Black Liberation Theology is, ican. It is not only Obama's politics, but it is his religion as well, which makes it even more serious. The sad part is that a majority of the people of this country probably could not even tell us what Black Liberation Theology is, yet that was one of the guiding foundations of Obama's religion, and thus his politics as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_liberation_theology
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=80008

"He's also stated the U.S. Supreme Court should have stepped beyond the Constitution and ventured into plans for wealth redistribution, he's told a plumber his goal is just to "spread the wealth," and his wife has said people will need to give up their piece of the pie so that others can have more."

Thats funny, even coming from you.
You were the one that said it was well planned and that it was well advertised.
You are the one that bragged about how many people would show up, putting the Glen Beck rally to shame.

Now, when it is obvious that at most half as many people showed up as were hoped, you say it was "too last minute".

You cant have it both ways, so was it well planned or not?
And if it wasnt, why did you say it was?

My first response was to ask whether you know this from your first hand experience as a Democratic freshman Congressman.

The second thing that came to my mind was the phenomenon now called Blue Dog Democrats. Add to that the fact that real liberals wanted single payer and the much of the resistance to it came from within that conservative group known as the Democratic Party and okie's statement is easily proved wrong.

Some more info and pics of the two rallies.

The second rally for the Leftist brand seems wanting when compared to the Beck rally. This despite students receiving credits for attending and SEIU members subsidized to attend by way of free transportation, meals, and lodging for the eveing. Hell ,even the Communist Party of the United States of America showed up!

JM

Lefties have tried various little ploys to denigrate tea party voters, conservatives and those who want the Democrats to go away.
They're calling them "irate," and "angry." The word is "scared." Voters aren't angry - they're frightened. They're frightened by the
amazing growth of government and the mountain of debt their children are going to have to pay off. Conservatism is the only thing
that can save this republic and the wholesale change back to conservatism begins Tuesday, the 2nd of November. Deal with it.

Thanks for the reply. The reason I asked the question was to stir up some conservative thought on the 2012 prospects. I picked Bolton mostly for his foreign policy expertise. As we can readily see, the left doesn't like him. This is mostly because of three things: He sees the damage leftist, such as, OBama, are doing to this country's standing with our allies and the dangerous foreign policies that this administration continues to put forth whether for the new START treaty, the hopeful containment of an Iran with a nuclear bomb, or the missed opportunities to promote freedom via the past civil unrest in Iran itself. Secondly he displays the courage to state those problems publicly rather then participate in 'Head in the Sand' policies we presently find the current Executive employing. Third he points out that there is no reason to fear a debate about the merits of the present American foreign policies on these issues and those that might eventually call for military action, even as a stop gap mechanism in the case of Iran.

The fact that the left absolutely despises Bolton should give conservatives a reason to, at least, pay heed to his reasoning. His presidential candidacy should be looked at in the same context as the Tea party. That is, conservative ideas are becoming increasingly popular with the American electorate. Continuing with the Tea party metaphor let's point out that like the Tea Party not standing its own candidates for 2010 elections, but rather working within the GOP, a Bolton run for the GOP nomination may have a distinct result of, first putting the issues out there, second feeling out the electorate regarding their thoughts on solutions, and moving the GOP to the right on Foreign policy issues. The stark contrast with Obama's present apology tour policies would be supremely evident. The main purpose or effect of a Bolton candidacy would be to allow the GOP to determine how far it might proceed to the right. This foreign policy card may prove to be more important in the 2012's if, hopefully, a more conservative 112th Congress is able to bring about pro-growth legislation beginning 1 Jan 2011. Such legislation, if successful, could negate, or at least put on the back burner, the economy/job problems for the 2012's and national security issues (War on Terror, Iran, Turkey) might then be the perfect GOP issue for the 2012 POTUS elections.

But getting back to your post: You are correct that Senator Bayh has good qualities as a man. You are certainly correct in weighing the evidence and making your choice for a particular man as your candidate. What else can one do? Surely you have more evidence as to your pick of a candidate about Bayh then you would have on say, Obama. But, wait, that isn't quite true, is it? Even though the MSM tried to downplay them you and I knew about Rev. Wright and Obama's asking 'Shouldn't we share the wealth?' of Joe the Plumber. Additionally we had his performance in the U.S. Senate, limited as it was.

The point is that we can no longer afford to pick a good man and hope he can continue to be so when the leftist evil closes in. Truth be told, we must temper our judgment with the fact that sooner or later a liberal Democrat, a moderate Democrat, a pro-life Democrat, or fiscal conservative (Blue Dog) Democrat will vote, well, like a Democrat. Each one of the above groups has members that put their 'principles' aside and voted for the most liberal, leftist, big government in our lives, legislation: Obamacare. So, the test for picking my candidates has become to, somehow, determine via past votes, word, or deed which candidate will vote according to conservative principles. So it goes--conservative in the primaries and GOP in the election. The Democrats have shown us their true colors: untrustworthy as a party even when they personally espouse principles, whether pro-life or fiscally conservative, they must be seen in the cynical light they have provided for themselves.

Oh, yes, RINOs must be sought out and ethically cleansed.

JM

P.S.
About The Blue Dogs

Your post is but another example of you being wrong, plainly wrong as shown by clear evidence, pom. Take a look at the following website, which shows that Blue Dog Democrats voted with Pelosi 80% of the time on issues like economic policy, in other words they probably supported Obama's liberal policies the vast majority of the time. One other point, even though Obamacare is not yet single payer, most of us know the game Obama is playing, we know that single payer is his ultimate goal, and that each and every legislative step is designed to bring him closer to that goal. We are already seeing signs that more and more companies will no longer be able to afford health care for their employees because of Obamacare, so that the health care plans will turn to government to handle it for them. I think this was designed into Obama's legislation to happen that way. Incrementalism is part of the Democratic playbook.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703859204575526061943295810.html?KEYWORDS=blue+dog+democrats
"The Lap Dog Coalition
Blue Dog Democrats voted with Nancy Pelosi 80% of the time on economic issues."

By the way, James Morrison, thanks for posting the above link in your post, which was more than sufficient to dispel pom's claims in her post.

Great point, James, which I have already said to mm in different words, that party means something, it means a politician belongs to a particular party for real reasons, and parties have policies and platforms, it is an inescapable fact. I still remember the old adage by my parents that they voted for the politician without regard for the party he or she belonged to. I have come to realize through years of observation that such a saying is actually very ignorant of the reality of what happens in Washington anymore. I have been known to vote for Democrats in local elections, even fairly recently, for offices like County Clerk or County Assessor, or even County Sheriff, because I knew they ran a good operation and deserved to be re-elected. However, I have almost decided not to do that much longer, because I simply think the Democratic Party has gotten so corrupt and so lacking of principle anymore that I think most decent people with any principles at all would have abandoned that party a few years ago now. I think there are still some good people around that are still Democrats, but I think it must be mostly due to naivity and being uninformed instead of any real belief in what their party defends and advances. And if a person is that naive and uninformed, they do not deserve to be elected to public office, that is the opinion I am coming around to, so that I may not vote for many more Democrats for any office, even if they are local.

America is the only Western nation to have a health care that provides poor health care for the average person but excellent care for the rich.