55
   

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

 
 
Foxfyre
 
  0  
Reply Thu 20 Aug, 2009 05:26 pm
@Foxfyre,
I would like to clarify my intent with this line:
Quote:
There are unreputable people who tell others what they want to hear and then do not behave accordingly of course. We elected a President like that I think. But I do believe our elected leaders are capable of reform if they understand that is the ONLY way they will retain their power.

'
Too many of our Republican elected representatives did not vote as they campaigned. And it cost them the majority in Congress. But while President George Bush turned out to be far less competent or fiscally responsible than we expected him to be, I do not think he was dishonest in how he sold himself to the American people. We got exactly what we voted in according to his campaign platform. He was and continues to be a very good man. We just should have paid closer attention to what he told us he wanted to do.

The president we elected who is not governing as he campaigned is President Obama. The Democrats in Congress however are absolutely governing as they campaigned and it is turning out to be so disastrous, we can hope it will be their undoing.

Let's just hope we have responsible Republicans in the chutes ready to replace them.
JTT
 
  2  
Reply Thu 20 Aug, 2009 05:37 pm
@ican711nm,
Quote:
I think Glen Beck agrees with you!


Gee, imagine that, one nutcase agreeing with another nutcase.

Quote:
Glen Beck in his book, Common Sense


That has got to be the funniest thing that I've ever heard.


Quote:



Well, I just finished Glenn Beck's "Common Sense," which, according to Beck, was "Inspired by Thomas Paine." Beck has clearly never truly read Thomas Paine and knows very little about him, his history, or his beliefs. For many readers, pages one to seven seem to make a lot of sense. There are some general and specific criticisms about government spending and corruption in Congress I agree with. Who wouldn't? But Beck's attempt to connect his neo-conservative positions with Founding Father Thomas Paine is shockingly ignorant of both Paine and American history.

Remind you of anyone, Foxy, Ican, Okie, ...

Beck uses this book - and Paine's name - to criticize "Progressivism," blaming it for much of what ails the country. Sadly, this is a complete distortion of Paine's legacy. While the extent of most Americans' knowledge of Paine is "he wrote Common Sense, I teach his work in class every year. I use "The Crisis" and selections from "The Rights of Man" and "Age of Reason." If you want to understand Paine and his vision for America, you should read them. Beck doesn't understand Paine, but he does want to use the credibility of "The Founding Fathers" to promote an anti-government message.

Beck uses this book to openly criticize progressive taxation, public education, social security, and "the progressive agenda." But readers should know something - Thomas Paine was one of the earliest advocates of progressive taxation, even drawing up tables and rates.

He was also the first proponent of the estate tax. And in Agrarian Justice he proposed a democratic ideal to combat poverty and income inequality by taxing the wealthy to give jobs and "grants" to young people. He also proposed using this system to provide government-sponsored pensions for the elderly. Historians cite Paine's Agrarian Justice as the earliest call for a national old-age pension - ie. Social Security. He wanted to tax the rich and give money to the poor.

He joined Thomas Jefferson in strongly advocating universal tax-supported public education, believing it was necessary to promote an educated electorate and was a necessary way to combat poverty. Paine also sought a federally guaranteed minimum wage, and long before Woodrow Wilson, Paine urged the establishment of, and US participation in, global organizations to help solve international problems and avoid wars.

Yet, this is all lost on Glenn Beck.

On page 99, Beck shifts from a scathing criticism of public education to promote God and religion in public life. This is completely disingenuous in a book "inspired by Thomas Paine." Paine was a deist who vigorously opposed Christianity or any organized religion. He often called himself an atheist. Paine was very anti-Christianity. He vehemently opposed the government supporting religion in any way. In fact, in his later life, he was practically exiled from the country because of his criticism of religion in America.

A few other criticisms:

On page 61, Beck paraphrases Barry Goldwater's quote, "A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have," and doesn't even give the original mind credit.

On page 17, Beck paraphrases the well-known "You can't save the poor by destroying the rich" quote from Reverend William J. H. Boetcke and again doesn't give credit. Historians and English teachers call this plagiarism.

Finally, Beck writes a mere 111 pages, and then re-prints all of Paine's "Common Sense" which is in the public domain - and he charges $12.00 for the book. What a sham. I'm glad I checked it out of the library, but I hate that my library spent taxpayer funds on it. They should have waited until it was in the bargain bin for $.99

That's why Beck is disingenuous. He is a hack, ...

http://www.amazon.com/Glenn-Becks-Common-Sense-Control/dp/1439168571/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1250810784&sr=1-1



0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Aug, 2009 05:55 pm
@Foxfyre,
Quote:
I do not think he was dishonest in how he sold himself to the American people.


Maybe that pairing of common sense with G Beck wasn't the funniest thing I've ever heard.

You're stunningly dishonest yourself, Foxfyre.
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  2  
Reply Thu 20 Aug, 2009 05:55 pm
@ican711nm,
ican711nm wrote:
GET YOUR FLAG READY

Great first words. Why am I not surprised? Nothing says my opinion is more in line with the interest of the country like a flag. If my side has more flags, we must be right.

Rolling Eyes

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Aug, 2009 05:58 pm
@ican711nm,
ican711nm wrote:
Yeah! I, am individualist and want to deny all collectivists the power to deny me my Constitutionally guaranteed liberties.

I'll let the crazy of this just speak for itself.

ican711nm wrote:
Worse, I don't want to teach any of 'em to fly.

Yeah, cause if you taught them how to fly then they'd... uh... wait... WTF does this have to do with ANYTHING.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Aug, 2009 06:24 pm
@Foxfyre,
Quote:
Let's just hope we have responsible Republicans in the chutes ready to replace them.


More bulls and cows to provide the unending BS/CS needed, more sheep to bleat in unison, more pigs to gobble at the trough, ... .
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Aug, 2009 06:26 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre, first of all, I want you to know that I am happy you continue to disagree with me about getting Republicans running for Congress in 2010, to run on a platform of impeaching and removing Barack Obama from the presidency. I admit that I probably will not be happy with your disagreement if it were to continue beyond February 2010, unless, of course, you change my mind. But now, what I want most is a full rational debate on this subject.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Aug, 2009 06:54 pm
@Foxfyre,
ican's comments are in blue
Foxfyre wrote:
The only way the GOP will be re-directed is to elect people who emulate by word AND track record the qualities we want in leaders. It will be persuaded by the unrelenting drum beat of reasonableness demanded by the Tea Partiers and Town Hall goers and those who talk to their neighbors, post on blogs, write letters to the editors, and consistently contact their elected leaders.

How shall the GOP be re-directed to elect people who emulate by word AND track record the qualities we want in leaders? What in their current mind set will motivate them to select and finance the election of such people? I think it has to be the adoption of a party platform that at least emulates by word the qualities we want in leaders. What will make that word credible to Americans now? Doesn't it have to be a departure from the platitudes and slogans of the past? Of course! So what shall be the specific--not platitudinous--content of that departure? I say, it must be a commitment to do some particular things that although controversial are rationally argueable as essential for the rescue of our country and its Constitution.

There are unreputable people who tell others what they want to hear and then do not behave accordingly of course. We elected a President like that I think. But I do believe our elected leaders are capable of reform if they understand that is the ONLY way they will REGAIN AND retain their power. (per your correction and MINE)

I agree that our elected leaders are capable of reform if they understand that is the ONLY way they will REGAIN AND retain their power. How shall they be so educated?

I don't agree with your proposed solution since I don't know a single person, other than you, who thinks that is the way to proceed or who would not be offended by those who attempted such. I myself would be offended by such an attempt. I think any such attempt would trigger a fight that would split the conservative base with the lion's share going to those who do not want impeachment, even as a theory. The base can ill afford to lose those who would vote for impeachment though.

I know a great many people and know of a great many more who agree with me. They are not all aviators or aviation students. Most are attendees of Texas Tea Parties. However, my wife who usually agrees with me on almost everything, currently disagrees with me on this subject.

Bottom line, there are many of us who thought the GOP hurt itself impeaching President Clinton for an offense that did not rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors and that did not meet criteria sufficient for conviction. And President Clinton's offenses were documented crimes not sanctioned by Congress--crimes that would hold up in the courts. So far President Obama has committed no documented crimes not sanctioned by Congress or that would be upheld in the courts.

Yes, Obama's predecessors have violated our Constitution. But Obama's violations are far worse and are far more likely to produce effects the USA will not be able recover from if they are not quickly stopped. I disagree that President Obama has committed no documented crimes not sanctioned by Congress or that would be upheld in the courts. That is currently true, but that is not permanently true if the issue were to be raised and confronted in an organized and rational manner.

I want my party to be a) the majority and b) the party of integrity, responsibility,competence, inclusiveness, and reasonableness.

Me too!

But I am open to be persuaded by anybody who can give me a convincing argument.

Me too!
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Aug, 2009 07:06 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:
The president we elected who is not governing as he campaigned is President Obama. The Democrats in Congress however are absolutely governing as they campaigned and it is turning out to be so disastrous, we can hope it will be their undoing.

Let's just hope we have responsible Republicans in the chutes ready to replace them.

Hope won't do it? A well thoughtout set of objectives will do it, followed by a well conducted campaign by people capable of rationally selling those objectives.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Aug, 2009 07:11 pm
@ican711nm,
ican711nm wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
The president we elected who is not governing as he campaigned is President Obama. The Democrats in Congress however are absolutely governing as they campaigned and it is turning out to be so disastrous, we can hope it will be their undoing.

Let's just hope we have responsible Republicans in the chutes ready to replace them.

Hope won't do it? A well thoughtout set of objectives will do it, followed by a well conducted campaign by people capable of rationally selling those objectives .


Yes, the "Freshman" Republican class of 1994 under the leadership of Newt Gingrich had the vision, the message, and the guts to back up their campaign pledges, and they governed brilliantly. They, I believe, rescued Bill Clinton from a failed presidency and converted what at best would have been a mediocre presidency into a pretty good one.

Unfortunately they had become fat and complacent by the time President Bush was elected, or I think he would have been a much better President.

What we need now is the vision and ability to sell it of a Gingrich without the baggage, and the stature of a Romney with the likability of a Huckabee and the stage presence of a Palin and the character of a Ron Paul. Maybe there's somebody out there who will fit that bill. Not asking much do you think?
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Aug, 2009 06:20 am
@Foxfyre,
Quote:

Yes, the "Freshman" Republican class of 1994 under the leadership of Newt Gingrich had the vision, the message, and the guts to back up their campaign pledges, and they governed brilliantly. They, I believe, rescued Bill Clinton from a failed presidency and converted what at best would have been a mediocre presidency into a pretty good one.

Aren't those the same Republicans that impeached and tried to remove Clinton from office? "Rescue" seems to have a completely different meaning to conservatives.

Quote:
What we need now is the vision and ability to sell it of a Gingrich without the baggage, and the stature of a Romney with the likability of a Huckabee and the stage presence of a Palin and the character of a Ron Paul. Maybe there's somebody out there who will fit that bill. Not asking much do you think?
That sounds like a job for one of those elected in 1994, Mark Sanford.
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Aug, 2009 08:02 am
@parados,
parados wrote:

Quote:

Yes, the "Freshman" Republican class of 1994 under the leadership of Newt Gingrich had the vision, the message, and the guts to back up their campaign pledges, and they governed brilliantly. They, I believe, rescued Bill Clinton from a failed presidency and converted what at best would have been a mediocre presidency into a pretty good one.

Aren't those the same Republicans that impeached and tried to remove Clinton from office? "Rescue" seems to have a completely different meaning to conservatives.

Sorta' like the way the Germans rescued the Lusitania.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Aug, 2009 08:10 am
@joefromchicago,
They didn't INTEND to rescue Clinton of course. But they did so just the same in spite of the ill advised and unpopular impeachment. Remember that Clinton was thoroughly rebuked in 1994 when nobody, and I mean NOBODY saw it coming when the Republicans took control of both houses of Congress.

But because Clinton wanted to be loved more than he wanted his way in politics, he went along with most of the GOP initiatives and these were popular with the people. They were even able to drag him screaming and kicking into welfare reform--he vetoed what, three or four bills, before public opinion finally persuaded him to sign the one that passed? That boosted the GOP's prestige and popularity enough to get George Bush elected twice, and Clinton got to take the credit.

That's a good deal for a President.

Like Clinton, Obama is starting out saddled with Congressional leaders who are gung ho to push through unpopular initiatives and the opinion of the people be damned.

He is still running on enough positive political capital that he could turn it around if he is smart enough, but he's using that political capital up at an alarming rate. We'll see how it goes.
blatham
 
  3  
Reply Fri 21 Aug, 2009 08:51 am
Clearly, what Obama ought to do now to push up his polling is to re-institute the terror alert color-code system and scare the **** out of citizens even where the DHS finds no real cause to do so.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Aug, 2009 08:52 am
@Foxfyre,
In fact, I'm guessing that if the people are sufficiently alarmed at the radical and extreme Obama we have now, and the GOP somehow managed to retake Congress in the next election, Obama could be turned around and made into a pretty good President too. It would be unintentional on the part of the GOP, but I could see that happening.

It would certainly be the best possible thing for the American people.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Aug, 2009 10:27 am
And for those who object to Rasmussen polls on the theory that Scott Rasmussen favors the Republicans--something that they can't prove--here is Zogby and John Zogby is a Democrat and has often been accused of favoring Democrats, also something that cannot be proved. Zogby generally does more closely parallel the mainstream media polls and does not focus on likely voters only as Rasmussen does which is probably why his approval ratings for Obama are usually higher than Rasmussens.

Quote:
Zogby: Obama Hits Record Low in Poll
Thursday, August 20, 2009 7:07 PM
By: David A. Patten

President Barack Obama's popularity has plummeted to a record low, with just 45 percent of voters now approving of his performance, according to the latest Zogby International poll.

Asked whether they approve or disapprove of the president's job performance, just 45.3 percent of likely voters say they approve. That compares with 50.5 percent who disapprove of the job Obama is doing.

More
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/Obama_plummets_Zogby/2009/08/20/250566.html?s=al&promo_code=85C8-1


For comparison, Rasmussen today:
Quote:
Overall, 49% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. That figure has stayed in a very narrow range between 47% and 51% every single day for more than a month. That range covers just two points above or two points below today’s rating. Prior the July 8th, the President’s approval rating had never fallen below 52%.

Fifty percent (50%) now disapprove.

Fifty-two percent (52%) of women approve while 54% of men disapprove. For more measures of the President's performance, see Obama By the Numbers and recent demographic highlights from the tracking polls

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll


The RCP average today that includes most of the major media and professional polling groups over the last two weeks:
RCP Average 8/11 - 8/20
Approval 51.8%
Disapproval 41.8%

That's down from a 60+ approval rating as recently as mid to late July.

Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Aug, 2009 10:32 am
@Foxfyre,
I do agree that Obama's numbers are very low at the moment; as for Zogby, however -

Quote:
Zogby International conducted an online survey of 2,530 voters.


Zogby internet polls are opt-in and unscientific, so I wouldn't take this one too seriously. The health care debate has really dragged Obama's approval down, with the Republicans purely hating him (Obama derangement syndrome?) and Dems pissed that he can't get a bill through Congress.

Cycloptichorn
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Aug, 2009 10:35 am
@Cycloptichorn,
This was not an 'internet poll'. Zogby is also a professional polling organization using accepted scientific methods for gathering information as well as their on going internet polls that are designed to show trends rather than hard results.

And it is blurbs like this KATU-TV broadcast that are eroding misplaced confidence that the Administration and Congressional leaders are giving us the truth about their intentions and what is in the radical plans they are pushing:
http://video.aol.com/video-detail/the-death-panels-are-real/311934679
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Aug, 2009 10:38 am
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

This was not an 'internet poll'. Zogby is also a professional polling organization using accepted scientific methods for gathering information.


It was in fact an internet-based poll, using an opt-in crowd. You are 100% wrong on that one. Zogby internet and Zogby phone polls are two completely different things. I suggest you go to Zogby's website, like I did, and look at the methodology of the poll if you don't believe me - I pulled the line about an 'online survey' straight from their wesbsite.

Cycloptichorn
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Aug, 2009 10:40 am
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:
... the "Freshman" Republican class of 1994 ... had the vision, the message, and the guts to back up their campaign pledges ...What we need now is the vision and ability to sell it ... Maybe there's somebody out there who will fit that bill. Not asking much do you think?

You are truly not asking much! You are not asking enough. You should be more specific about what you are asking

First things first: what should the message be this time?

I say the message should be impeach & remove Obama. Both you and my wife disagree! Ok! How about this message?

Rescind all Obamacollectivist bills:
Subsidies;
Stimuluses;
Universal Health Cares;
Cap and trades;
Domestic oil drilling bans;
tax increases.

 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.12 seconds on 01/12/2025 at 08:43:35