AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Meanwhile, a gleaning of the political cartoons of the week:

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/6-4-09empathRGB20090605010736.jpg

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/ca0603bd20090603070137.jpg

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/6-3-09socialismRGB20090603110838.jpg

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/sk0603d20090603070337.jpg

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/GM090603CLR-ObamasD20090603020401.jpg

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/holb090605_cmyk20090604092541.jpg

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/varv06052009a20090605035048.jpg

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/lb0605cd20090604061953.jpg

0 Replies

Which is to say, a "gleaning" of right wing screed illustrations . . .

1 Reply

@Setanta,

What can we expect from the "No Party?" All they say is "no," and provide no solution of their own.

The republican party is the joke.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

This has been said before Fox on more than one occasion. you must have missed them.

The preliminary numbers used are a 6.15% margin of victory. (See your link)
The actual margin of victory was 7.26%
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/president/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2008
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Final_popular_vote_count_2008_presidential_election

wiki does a breakout of numbers with actual percentages.

So.. since Rasmussen had Obama up by 6 he did worse than anyone that had him up by 7 and 8. There were at least 5 polls that had a 7 or 8 point margin. Rasmussen only did slightly better than those that had Obama up by 9.

http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/08-us-pres-ge-mvo.php

Now. Can you stop using this specious use of preliminary numbers as if it had some validity?
Rasmussen ends up about 10 on the list with the correct numbers. Rasmussen underestimates Obama's support unlike the claim from the preliminary numbers.

The attempt to make one poll be more accurate is meaningless since all polls have a margin of error and all polls have the victory within their margin of error.
The other problem with the comparison of polls, is the author uses polls from different time periods. For instance the claim that the CBS/Times poll is way off when it uses the numbers from 10/27. The same period of time when Rasmussen was polling Obama up by only 3 points. The piece is garbage because it uses preliminary numbers which turn out quite different and uses polls from different time periods while ignoring other polls from those time periods.

Based on the sequence of polls by Rasmussen, the polls were generally heavy for the GOP candidate and light for the Democratic one. It's meaningless really but it certainly disputes the idiotic claim that he is the best pollster.

1 Reply

@parados,

Again Parados, my links were simply to support my opinion about Rasmussen and Gallup polls and they did that, but I was NOT discussing polls but rather the points illustrated by the polls, none of which were altered in any way by whatever poll is used. I'm sure there are those who would be fascinated to nitpick percentages and data from polling processes with you, but I simply do not have the interest in that at this time to worry about it. Do enjoy yourself in the exercise however.

2 Replies

Quote:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
Article II Section 1. The President …
Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Article VI. The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

HOW SHALL WE SAVE OUR CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC?
The solution for how to save our Constitutional Republic is not to repeatedly sound alarms and repeatedly give the reasons for those alarms. The solution is to impeach President Obama, or remove him in a special election. He is leading the transfer of the wealth of those persons and organizations who lawfully earned it to those persons and organizations who have not lawfully earned it.

Nowhere in the Constitution"not even in Article I. Section 8.--has the President, the Congress, or the Judiciary been granted the power to make such wealth transfers. Any branch of the federal government that makes such wealth transfers violates the "supreme law of the land," and their "oath or affirmation to support this Constitution""Article VI. Making such wealth transfers is exercising "powers not delegated to the United States" and therefore violates the Constitution"Amendment X. Making such wealth transfers is an act of treason against the United States and is "adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort" "Article III. Section 3.

We have to convince those in the House of Representatives, who do not violate their oaths to support the Constitution, to make a motion to impeach President Obama. Failure--or excessive delay--to take this necessary first step will guarantee the transformation of our country from a Constitutional Republic to a dictatorship. Or, we have to convince two-thirds of the state legislatures to call a Constitutional Convention for the purpose of amending the Constitution to permit more than half the state legislatures to call for a special election of President and Congress.

1 Reply

And back to Sotomayor, those of you who don't like Thomas Sowell might want to just skip over this post. But Sowell has raised points that many of us are hesitant to say and thus trigger automatic accusations of 'racism' or worse from her admirers and supporters. Sowell rarely stands on ceremony or political correctness in his commentaries which is one of several reasons I like him so much.

Quote:

Excerpted from a three-part essay on Sonia Sotomayor 'IN CONTEXT":

. . . .In Washington, the clearer a statement is, the more certain it is to be followed by a "clarification" when people realize what was said. The clearly racist comments made by Judge Sonia Sotomayor on the Berkeley campus in 2001 have forced the spinmasters to resort to their last-ditch excuse, that it was "taken out of context."

If that line is used during Judge Sotomayor's Senate confirmation hearings, someone should ask her to explain just what those words mean when taken in context.

What could such statements possibly mean " in any context " other than the new and fashionable racism of our time, rather than the old-fashioned racism of earlier times? Racism has never done this country any good, and it needs to be fought against, not put under new management for different groups. . . .

**********************************

. . . . What does it say about her qualifications to be on the Supreme Court when her supporters' biggest talking points are that she had to struggle to rise in the world?

Bonnie and Clyde had to struggle. Al Capone had to struggle. The only President of the United States who was forced to resign for his misdeeds " Richard Nixon " had to struggle. For that matter, Adolf Hitler had to struggle! There is no evidence that struggle automatically makes you a better person.

Sometimes, instead of making you appreciative of a society in which someone born at the bottom can rise to the top, it leaves you embittered that you had to spend years struggling, and resentful of those who were born into circumstances where the easy way to the top was open to them.

Much in the past of Sonia Sotomayor, and of the president who nominated her, suggests such resentments. . . .

****************************************

. . . .Since there has been so much talk of putting some of Sonia Sotomayor's inflammatory words "in context," perhaps we should put her personal life in context, if the media insist on making her personal life a factor in her nomination to the Supreme Court. While she grew up in a public housing project, the words "housing project" in that era did not mean anything like the housing projects of today.

A relative of mine lived in one of the housing projects back then " and we were proud of him, as well as glad for him, because such places were for upright citizens in those days " working class people with steady jobs and good behavior. Clever intellectuals had not yet taught us to be "non-judgmental" about misbehavior or to make excuses for vandalism and crime.

While Sonia Sotomayor was not born with a silver spoon in her mouth, let's not make her someone who rose from such depths as those conjured up by the words "housing projects" today. It is bad enough that biographical considerations carry such weight in considerations of nominees for the Supreme Court. But, if biography must be elaborated, let it at least be done "in context." . . . .

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell060209.php3
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell060309.php3
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell060409.php3

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Ican, I know that you are committed to your point of view on this, but while I agree with at least some of the basis of your conviction, are you willing to trade Barack Obama for Joe Biden? If you don't like what Obama says when he's out impressing the world, can you imagine a Biden who doesn't follow a teleprompter all that well? And if we impeach both simultaneously, are you looking forward to a President Pelosi?

I think the focus needs to be on sounding those alarms you are protesting, and to educate the people in language they can understand what it means to embrace this or that policy or concept so that we can slow down the destruction through public opinion. And then lets hope and pray some leaders who understand that are raised up before the next election.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre asked:

Quote:

QUESTION FOR ANYBODY:

If a third party emulating MAC virtues/principles could be raised up--maybe something akin to Ross Perot's group prior to and during the Clinton years--would you be interested? There are a few being tentatively promoted out there.

For instance here is the basic core principles of the "Constitution Party". Would something like this or something along these lines--maybe without the religious overtones--be appealing to you? If you could be convinced such a group was viable would you consider it?

Quote:
Seven Principles of the Constitution Party are:

1. Life: For all human beings, from conception to natural death;
2. Liberty: Freedom of conscience and actions for the self-governed individual;
3. Family: One husband and one wife with their children as divinely instituted;
4. Property: Each individual's right to own and steward personal property without government burden;
5. Constitution: and Bill of Rights interpreted according to the actual intent of the Founding Fathers;
6. States' Rights: Everything not specifically delegated by the Constitution to the federal government, nor prohibited by the Constitution to the states, is reserved to the states or to the people;
7. American Sovereignty: American government committed to the protection of the borders, trade, and common defense of Americans, and not entangled in foreign alliances.

Yes I would be interested and join hoping that the movement would be significant enough to raise Republican Party interest. We then could form a coalition that would emphasize (almost exclusively) Planks 4 thru 7 while marginalizing those radicals Re abortion, Gay Marriage, and immigration. I would prefer this arrangement to running against Repub nominees to avoid a Naderization of the vote which would lower election possibilities for both. Getting MAC's elected to Congress would be the most important goal but a MAC executive would be additional gravey on that meat.

The abortion issue we claim is settled law and if pressed claim it a states rights issue which we defer to the people of those individual states. Gay marriage seems an issue, again, for individual states. More and more people just don't seem to care and when Republicans strive to regain control of Congress (and, hopefully, the Executive) this is a battle that makes Conservatives seem stodgy and old fashioned and, IMO, is not worth the negative PR (Reminds me of Bismarck's description of the Balkans RE Germany's foreign policy interests there: "...not worth the healthy bones of a single Pomeranian Grenadier”). Therefore both of these issues can properly fall under both planks 2 and 6.

My thought on immigration will probably be distasteful to you but I really think Conservatives can regain a major part of the population by proposing a one time Fair Immigration Act or Progressive Immigration Act that would acknowledge those 12 million immigrants already here, give them a fair chance at citizenship given robust standards. This shortly will only follow a robust effort to secure our borders demonstrated by honest metrics and a system that tracts all foreigners with visa's or even a workers program. The borders must be secure before any amnesty type situation is enacted. However, the public emphasis should be on the former (12 million) (rather than the latter (secure borders).

As a subsection of 5 I would really insist on a plank that would work towards National standards RE proficiency in English Comprehension, Writing in English, Mathematics, and the Sciences in grades 1 thru 12. Forget pre-school, studies have shown that its only value is that of a glorified, at best, daycare service, and therefore a waste of resources. I would also try to eliminate many state requirements now needed for teacher certification. Most of the courses involved merely serve to keep qualified teachers out of service thereby restricting the supply. You and I seemed to have done fine by teachers in the past who most certainly did not meet today's increasingly stricter standards. All that is needed is a background check and the relative proficiency test RE the subject being taught. Obama and the Dems have dropped the ball here because of their debts to the Teacher's Union ( http://www.nrtw.org/en/blog/teachers-file-fec-complaint-against-nea-illeg ) manifest in Dick Durbin's efforts at canceling the charter school scholarship program for poor Wash DC kids. Think of it. Conservatives pushing school reform to (especially Black) parents in poor districts. This could be another rich source of votes. We could co-pt Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton to work in this area along with other notable Blacks like Bill Cosby, Colin Powell, and maybe even Justice Thomas! (Later, we could remove the albatross of Affirmative Action from around the collective necks of all Americans and greatly increase equal opportunities for all Americans.) Education as a function of government falls under The General Welfare. Just as important, I feel, is that there must be some accomendation for those students that truly want to learn as opposed to those who merely disrupt class in any way--a policy of Nuns and Rulers ,if you will. We must make a very serious attempt to put both parents and students on notice that disruptive behavior of any kind will not be tolerated. This can and must be done. Kids do not want to be different than their peers, if the bad apples are ostracized they will beg to come back under the correct conditions. Those that don't, won't. If the argument is that education is a right of every American child then those that would deny it to others should be treated as those that steal property or take livelyhoods. If it is a priviledge then those that demonstrate, through their actions, a disintrest should be removed from those who do hold such interests.

Health care as an issue is trickier because, well, so are our Democratic opponents. Market based health care is desired but that implies that the consumer must pay for what he consumes. This in combination with competition lowers costs, but probably not low enough, so, the government can tax those who now enjoy Federal Tax exemption from that part of their income that pays for Health insurance and offer John McCain's tax credit of 7G's or so. If you can find or settle for less insurance (like a smaller or less expensive vehicle) you keep the rest of the tax credit. But this can be dishonestly attacked as Joe Biden's "...largest increase on middle-class taxpayers in American history" but Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus reports that the above tax to, Obama, is "... on the table. It's an option" Further Obama's 1.5 percentage point reduction in health care costs each year turns out to be 1.5 percentage points after 10 years. ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/04/AR2009060402745.html ) So perhaps the conservatives can wedge themselves in here.

Of course, if needed, added revenue can be obtained by assessing those that have benefited from the American situation more than others, but since Obama and Biden have already proposed tapping those that benefited financially above 200K or 250K (or whatever the arbitrarily reached current estimation) we must look elsewhere. Surely those of higher education would agree they have benefited from that American system via education. Why not tax them just a little extra for the privilege? BA's 1%, BSc 1.2%, MA 2%, MSc 2.12% and PhD's 3%/3.1%. We could call it the "nasty tax" or NASYET (for: No Alternative Screw Your Educated Ass Tax)Those with such degrees that are paid from the revenues of entities (private) that do not receive any federal funding or TARP, etc) are exempt since they already pay such taxes and their income does not consist of taxpayer monies. Hell, why not tax those on welfare since we already tax those monies received from unemployment and social security compensation? How about an
excise tax on Union wages? Why not? Seriously, why the hell not? What's wrong with a little change? Isn’t that what we voted for? Dare we so hope? The Beast must be fed! It’s the BEAST, THE BEAST! Look out...!

Sorry, I must climb back into my stodgy OD green conservative uniform now.
Cool

JM

1 Reply

To Foxfyre, James Morrison, ican, and any other conservative, I have a thread I would like you to look in on, I am interested in your take on it. I started this thread a long time ago, "What produces RUTHLESS DICTATORS," and it went along for quite a while without much posting, but right now a whole bunch of liberals are really putting up a fight there in an attempt to debunk anything and everything I have posted. Right now, I am greatly outnumbered.

My basic premise for the thread was that certain common denominators in the lives of people like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc. were distinct, interesting, and worth studying, as it could be instructive to us for judging politicians. As expected, liberals made snide remarks about this, indicating they thought the subject was pointless or in error. The debate has also strayed off on a tangent, basically centering around whether Fascism and Hitler were left or right wing. Also, I have maintained that leftists more commonly become dictators, simply because they believe in big government by definition, that defines their politics to start with, so therefore they will more naturally gravitate in that direction. After all, they believe big government is the answer to all problems.

So here is the link, if you all have time to take a look. The reason I post this here is because this thread about American conservatism also discusses left vs right.

http://able2know.org/topic/66117-1

1 Reply

@okie,

Okay I chimed in over there Okie, as if I needed a lot more grief Smile

, but now you owe me. You have to answer the question JamesMorrison answered just before your post.

James.....a lot of meat there. I'll get back to you later. Right now I'm turning into a pumpkin and headed for bed.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

My post was in response to YOUR question Fox. You wanted evidence to show how the statement was NOT true. Now it is nitpicking to answer YOUR question with the data you said you required before you would stop posting the same falsehood? Could you be any more condescending in your attitude?

You claimed that Rasmussen was the most accurate poll. You have been told on at least 3 occasions your "evidence" is wrong. When told again, you asked for evidence to support it even though that evidence had been given before. Then WHEN you are given the evidence YOU requested you call it "nitpicking."

A "thank you" would have been the appropriate response. But you don't have the manners it seems. Instead you act as if my giving you an answer was somehow attacking you. I am not sure why I try to be nice to you. You obviously won't ever reciprocate.

2 Replies

@parados,

You try to be NICE to me? Laughing

Good lord, if you are NICE to me, I shudder to think what rudeness and hostility looks like. Laughing

But giving you a HUGE benefit of the doubt, if you were in fact attempting to be 'nice' with your comment on the polls, thank you for the effort. Now perhaps we could focus on the topic that was being discussed which was not the polls in question?

2 Replies

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

More of the same from you I see Fox.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados, You've finally realized how condescending Foxie is? LOL
The funny thing about Foxie is that she's both condescending and insulting at the same time; that's a special skill not many have.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

But giving you a HUGE benefit of the doubt, if you were in fact attempting to be 'nice' with your comment on the polls, thank you for the effort. Now perhaps we could focus on the topic that was being discussed which was not the polls in question?

This is another one of our "WTF" moments with dishonest, diversionary Foxfyre.

Foxfyre initially made a statement:

Foxfyre wrote:

I notice, however, that there are now more people who identify themselves as Independent than those identifying themselves as Democrat or identifying themselves as Republican.

Based on this premise, Foxfyre "suggested" a conclusion:

Foxfyre wrote:

That would suggest a growing disenchantment with both major parties;

Old Europe provided Gallup poll numbers that discredit Foxfyre's theory:

Basic Party Identification

2001
33 % Democrat
34 % Independent
32 % Republican

2009
36 % Democrat
37 % Independent
27 % Republican

From 2001 to 2009:

The percentage of Americans who identify themselves as Democrat has INCREASED three points. The percentage of Americans who identify themselves as Independent has also INCREASED three points. However, the percentage of Americans who identify themselves as Republican has DECREASED by FIVE points.

In other words, Foxfyre CANNOT support her theory that there is a GROWING disenchantment with BOTH major parties.

Based on the poll numbers that compare party identification in 2001 to party identification in 2009, Old Europe offered another theory:

Old Europe wrote:

. . . rather than being disenchanted with both the Republicans and the Democrats, people are really just frustrated with the Republican party and self-identify as Democrats or Independents rather than Republicans.

Rather than admit that her theory was discredited because it lacked factual support, Foxfyre claimed that Gallup didn't have a great track record for accuracy. Foxfyre used the preliminary "Fordham study" in an ill-conceived attempt to discredit Gallup. Many posters brought his to Foxfyre's attention, as they have done on numerous occasions in the past, and Foxfyre was forced into a corner.

In her usual condescending manner, Foxfyre blurts out:

Foxfyre wrote:

But giving you a HUGE benefit of the doubt, if you were in fact attempting to be 'nice' with your comment on the polls, thank you for the effort. Now perhaps we could focus on the topic that was being discussed which was not the polls in question?

The TOPIC being discussed was Foxfyre's unsupported and discredited theory of a growing disenchantment with BOTH major parties. Supportable facts prove that there is indeed a growing disenchantment with the Republican party. There is no evidence of a growing disenchantment with the Democrat party.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

. . .I was NOT discussing polls but rather the points illustrated by the polls, none of which were altered in any way by whatever poll is used.

What point was Foxy trying to "illustrate" by the polls? Foxy was trying to "illustrate," by using faulty data, that there was a GROWING disenchantment with BOTH major political parties. Foxfyre is lying when she claims her point is not altered in any way by whatever poll is used. The Gallup poll used by OE did indeed "alter" the point Foxfyre was trying to illustrate. The Gallup poll proved that Foxfyre's theory was false.

Foxfyre wrote:

I'm sure there are those who would be fascinated to nitpick percentages and data from polling processes with you, but I simply do not have the interest in that at this time to worry about it.

In Foxfyre's irrational world, when her theories are proven to be false, she claims pe0ple are "nitpicking."

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

QUESTION FOR ANYBODY:

If a third party emulating MAC virtues/principles could be raised up--maybe something akin to Ross Perot's group prior to and during the Clinton years--would you be interested? There are a few being tentatively promoted out there.

For instance here is the basic core principles of the "Constitution Party". Would something like this or something along these lines--maybe without the religious overtones--be appealing to you? If you could be convinced such a group was viable would you consider it?

Quote:
Seven Principles of the Constitution Party are:

1. Life: For all human beings, from conception to natural death;
2. Liberty: Freedom of conscience and actions for the self-governed individual;
3. Family: One husband and one wife with their children as divinely instituted;
4. Property: Each individual's right to own and steward personal property without government burden;
5. Constitution: and Bill of Rights interpreted according to the actual intent of the Founding Fathers;
6. States' Rights: Everything not specifically delegated by the Constitution to the federal government, nor prohibited by the Constitution to the states, is reserved to the states or to the people;
7. American Sovereignty: American government committed to the protection of the borders, trade, and common defense of Americans, and not entangled in foreign alliances.

In general, I am skeptical of raising up a new party. I instinctively believe that the reshaping and revitalizing an existing party is more workable, and more likely to succeed. This is based upon about 60 years of being aware of or watching parties and political views evolve. I realize nothing is impossible, there is always something new that could happen, but this is my opinion as it is. At the time of Goldwater, I saw him lose so badly, I really did not believe that Reagan would have a chance, so I was proven wrong there, and basically it was Reagan that accomplished that. Again, I think we need the right personality, the right leader, more than we need a new party. To be accurate, I think Reagan accomplished alot, but he did not accomplish alot of what some of us wanted, such as more fiscal responsibility. Alot of what we are fighting now is bureaucratic inertia, entitlements and peoples expectations of government, it is so ingrained that to turn this around looks like an almost impossible task. It will take an inspirational leader more than a new party in my opinion, if it is possible at all.

Now I will look at the specific points:

Quote:

1. Life: For all human beings, from conception to natural death;

As some have said, changing hearts here is what needs doing more than changing the law, and I see some movement here. I do think Roe v Wade is a terrible decision, not constitutionally based. Policy in regard to this cannot be changed cold turkey. From conception would be a tough item to sell. Much more practical to go with a baby able to survive outside the womb. Not as idealogically concrete, but more practical.

Quote:

2. Liberty: Freedom of conscience and actions for the self-governed individual;

Sounds good, but the freedom of conscience, what about people that claim abortion only pertains to their conscience, or murder, or robbery. I don't see the need to add to the constitution as it exists now? Maybe I'm missing something here?

Quote:

3. Family: One husband and one wife with their children as divinely instituted;

I see this more as an unwritten understanding from our foundational beliefs. I don't see the wisdom of spelling this out. The family as described is an ideal, a goal, but even though we may not wish to institutionalize homosexual marriage, we do not want to exclude the people that don't fit the ideal mold. Society is an imperfect collection of people, and we have ideals, but those do not have to be spelled out as a requirement for a political party. Just my opinion.

Quote:

4. Property: Each individual's right to own and steward personal property without government burden;

I think all parties should believe in private property already, that is a given, and without government burden? What about property tax? I don't think that flies.

Quote:

5. Constitution: and Bill of Rights interpreted according to the actual intent of the Founding Fathers;

Even the Democrats think they are doing that, so I don't see the point, it really doesn't define anything, it doesn't clear any disagreement up at all. I don't think it should even be necessary to say you believe in this, that should be a given.

Quote:

6. States' Rights: Everything not specifically delegated by the Constitution to the federal government, nor prohibited by the Constitution to the states, is reserved to the states or to the people;

Again, already specified by the constitution, and should already be understood. The main problem we have now is a disagreement of how it should be applied, which would still be the case, with or without this as part of the party platform.

Quote:

7. American Sovereignty: American government committed to the protection of the borders, trade, and common defense of Americans, and not entangled in foreign alliances.

Again, another given, that most people probably believe in, in principle, but practically in regard to foreign alliances, almost everyone thinks we need to be involved in certain ways in foreign matters, simply by virtue of the fact that we are a very powerful country living in a world community. Therefore, we have to be involved to some extent. Trade, this is a world economy, we must participate. Borders, as a nation, we obviously should recognize them and protect them. That should be a given. On balance, I think these issues must be addressed in specific ways during a campaign, rather than written in the permanent bylaws or whatever, of a party.

In conclusion, I am not all that jazzed by the 7 points, although I probably support the general idea of them, but I am not particularly in favor of making these points part of the basic foundation of a party.

3 Replies

@okie,

Okay. Observations noted, though I think both parties are NOT saying they hold to the intent of the Founding Fathers re how the Constitution should be interpreted. Many on the Left, and even a few on the Right, think the Constitution should be a living document, flexible for the trends and concepts inherit at the present time. That was Obama's specific intent, I think, in wanting a Supreme Court Justice with certain 'life experience', of a particular ethnicity, and who had 'empathy'. He certainly doesn't want the Constitution interpreted as the Founders intended it in every case.

I'm not positive, but I think I read somewhere that the Constitution Party favors a uniform flat tax and possibly a consumption tax and would do away with all property taxes. Their rationale is that everybody should share proportionately to support government--the more affluent would of course pay the most; the least affluent the least, but everybody should feel the effects of what government does to avoid the temptation to corrupt the system by punishing one group in order to garner favor with another.

Agreed however that the 'foreign alliances' is the most sticky wicket on the list. While our Founders were most leery of such alliances, it would be extremely difficult for us to participate in a global economy or to stave off aggressive tyranny wherever it exists without some cooperation between friendly nations. So that one would need some work.

(James, yours was more complicated, but I will get back to it.)

1 Reply

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know