• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

"True Conservativism" Stepping Forward

A

Anonymous

Guest
Maybe the day of the neo conservative and neo Liberal are waning...Folks waking up to the fact that you only get one chance to sell your country- and we need to save what GW hasn't already sold out on us :( :( :mad:
-----------------------

Republicans Grow Skeptical On Free Trade
By JOHN HARWOOD
October 4, 2007; Page A1

WASHINGTON -- By a nearly two-to-one margin, Republican voters believe free trade is bad for the U.S. economy, a shift in opinion that mirrors Democratic views and suggests trade deals could face high hurdles under a new president.

The sign of broadening resistance to globalization came in a new Wall Street Journal-NBC News Poll that showed a fraying of Republican Party orthodoxy on the economy. While 60% of respondents said they want the next president and Congress to continue cutting taxes, 32% said it's time for some tax increases on the wealthiest Americans to reduce the budget deficit and pay for health care.

Six in 10 Republicans in the poll agreed with a statement that free trade has been bad for the U.S. and said they would agree with a Republican candidate who favored tougher regulations to limit foreign imports. That represents a challenge for Republican candidates who generally echo Mr. Bush's calls for continued trade expansion, and reflects a substantial shift in sentiment from eight years ago.

"It's a lot harder to sell the free-trade message to Republicans," said Republican pollster Neil Newhouse, who conducts the Journal/NBC poll with Democratic counterpart Peter Hart. The poll comes ahead of the Oct. 9 Republican presidential debate in Michigan sponsored by the Journal and the CNBC and MSNBC television networks.

The leading Republican candidates are still trying to promote free trade. "Our philosophy has to be not how many protectionist measures can we put in place, but how do we invent new things to sell" abroad, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani said in a recent interview. "That's the view of the future. What [protectionists] are trying to do is lock in the inadequacies of the past."

Such a stance is sure to face a challenge in the 2008 general election. Though President Bill Clinton famously steered the Democratic Party toward a less-protectionist bent and promoted the North American Free Trade Agreement, his wife and the current Democratic front-runner, Hillary Rodham Clinton, has adopted more skeptical rhetoric. Mrs. Clinton has come out against a U.S. trade deal with South Korea.

Other leading Democrats have been harshly critical of trade expansion, pleasing their party's labor-union backers. In a March 2007 WSJ/NBC poll, before recent scandals involving tainted imports, 54% of Democratic voters said free-trade agreements have hurt the U.S., compared with 21% who said they have helped.

While rank-and-file Democrats have long blasted the impact of trade on American jobs, slipping support among Republicans represents a fresh warning sign for free-market conservatives and American companies such as manufacturers and financial firms that benefit from markets opening abroad.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119144942897748150.html?mod=hpp_us_whats_news
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
In the Republican campaign so far, elevating populist trade concerns has been left to the long shots. "The most important thing a president needs to do is to make it clear that we're not going to continue to see jobs shipped overseas....and then watch as a CEO takes a $100 million bonus," Mr. Huckabee said at a debate earlier this year. "If Republicans don't stop it, we don't deserve to win in 2008."


Brownbacks quitting now moves Huckabee and Paul to the forefront of the two true Conservatives that are not tied completely to the neocon Corporate pocket books...
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
:lol: Huckabee and paul the true conservatives.. sure oldtimer.

JB Williams

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ron Paul: A Liberal-tarian, Not a Conservative
By JB Williams
MichNews.com
Aug 29, 2007




Ron Paul supporters are fast making a name for themselves on the web. Not because they are just web savvy, but because they have proven themselves to be the best at hacking on-line polls, invalidating conservative polling data on behalf of their candidate. It seems that even Democrat 527 MoveOn.org is now onboard the Ron Paul anti-war train.



Despite the fact that presidential candidate Ron Paul can not score better than 3% in any legitimate national poll, his supporters claim he is “the conservative” candidate to beat in the 2008 Republican race for the White House. Despite his less than conservative voting record in congress and his Teddy Kennedy like position on the war on terror in Iraq, his supporters think he is the most “conservative” candidate in the race. How?



On the Issues - Not strong on life -



Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)

Not strong on traditional Marriage



Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004 & Jul 2006)

Not strong on crime and punishment



Opposes the death penalty. (Jan 2007)
Voted YES on funding for alternative sentencing instead of more prisons. (Jun 2000)
Voted NO on more prosecution and sentencing for juvenile crime. (Jun 1999)
Voted NO on constitutional amendment prohibiting flag desecration. (Jun 2003)

Not strong on fighting the drug problem



Legalize industrial hemp. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism. (Sep 2001)
Voted NO on subjecting federal employees to random drug tests. (Sep 1998)
Legalize medical marijuana. (Jul 2001)

Not strong on free religious speech or private schooling options



Voted NO on allowing school prayer during the War on Terror. (Nov 2001)
Voted NO on requiring states to test students. (May 2001)
Voted NO on allowing vouchers in DC schools. (Aug 1998)
Rated 67% by the NEA, indicating a mixed record on public education

Not strong on national security and sovereignty



Voted NO on deterring foreign arms transfers to China. (Jul 2005)
Voted NO on reforming the UN by restricting US funding. (Jun 2005)
Military aggressiveness weakens our national defense. (May 2007)
Criticizes use of war on terror to curtail civil liberties. (Jan 2007)
Opposes Patriot Act & Iraq War. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on continuing intelligence gathering without civil oversight. (Apr 2006)
Voted NO on federalizing rules for driver licenses to hinder terrorists. (Feb 2005)

Not strong on government reform and campaign transparency



Voted NO on requiring lobbyist disclosure of bundled donations. (May 2007)
Voted NO on restricting independent grassroots political committees. (Apr 2006)
Voted NO on campaign finance reform banning soft-money contributions. (Feb 2002)
Voted NO on banning soft money and issue ads. (Sep 1999)

Not strong on Second Amendment Rights



Voted NO on prohibiting product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers. (Oct 2005)
Voted NO on prohibiting suing gun makers & sellers for gun misuse. (Apr 2003)
Voted NO on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1. (Jun 1999)

Not strong in the war on terror



We're more threatened now by staying in Iraq. (Jun 2007)
We should have declared war in Iraq, or not gone in at all. (May 2007)
Ronald Reagan had the courage to turn tail & run in Lebanon. (May 2007)
Intervention abroad incites hatred & attacks like 9/11. (May 2007)
When we go to war carelessly, the wars don't end. (May 2007)
Voted against war because Iraq was not a national threat. (May 2007)
Opposes Iraq war and opposes path toward Iran war. (Jan 2007)
Voted YES on redeploying US troops out of Iraq starting in 90 days. (May 2007)
Voted NO on declaring Iraq part of War on Terror with no exit date. (Jun 2006)
Voted NO on approving removal of Saddam & valiant service of US troops. (Mar 2004)
Voted NO on authorizing military force in Iraq. (Oct 2002)

I can keep going, but you can go look for yourself if you need more information. I think this is more than enough to explain why liberal Democrats are supporting Ron Paul for President. He’s better aligned with their thinking than either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Red Robin said:
:lol: Huckabee and paul the true conservatives.. sure oldtimer.

JB Williams

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ron Paul: A Liberal-tarian, Not a Conservative
By JB Williams
MichNews.com
Aug 29, 2007




Ron Paul supporters are fast making a name for themselves on the web. Not because they are just web savvy, but because they have proven themselves to be the best at hacking on-line polls, invalidating conservative polling data on behalf of their candidate. It seems that even Democrat 527 MoveOn.org is now onboard the Ron Paul anti-war train.



Despite the fact that presidential candidate Ron Paul can not score better than 3% in any legitimate national poll, his supporters claim he is “the conservative” candidate to beat in the 2008 Republican race for the White House. Despite his less than conservative voting record in congress and his Teddy Kennedy like position on the war on terror in Iraq, his supporters think he is the most “conservative” candidate in the race. How?



On the Issues - Not strong on life -



Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)

Should be a State Issue...States Rights- feds should not even be in the middle of it.....

Not strong on traditional Marriage



Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004 & Jul 2006)

Should be a State Issue...States Rights- feds should not even be in the middle of it.....

Not strong on crime and punishment



Opposes the death penalty. (Jan 2007)
Voted YES on funding for alternative sentencing instead of more prisons. (Jun 2000)
Voted NO on more prosecution and sentencing for juvenile crime. (Jun 1999)
Voted NO on constitutional amendment prohibiting flag desecration. (Jun 2003)

Should be a State Issue...States Rights- feds should not even be in the middle of it.....

Not strong on fighting the drug problem



Legalize industrial hemp. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism. (Sep 2001)
Voted NO on subjecting federal employees to random drug tests. (Sep 1998)
Legalize medical marijuana. (Jul 2001)

I agree with him on the industrial hemp and the medical marijuana--Should be a State Issue...States Rights- feds should not even be in the middle of it.....

Not strong on free religious speech or private schooling options



Voted NO on allowing school prayer during the War on Terror. (Nov 2001)
Voted NO on requiring states to test students. (May 2001)
Voted NO on allowing vouchers in DC schools. (Aug 1998)
Rated 67% by the NEA, indicating a mixed record on public education

Again running of your schools and education Should be a State and local Issue...States Rights- feds should not even be in the middle of it.....

Not strong on national security and sovereignty



Voted NO on deterring foreign arms transfers to China. (Jul 2005)
Voted NO on reforming the UN by restricting US funding. (Jun 2005)
I'm not sure what the vote was for- or his reasons...

Military aggressiveness weakens our national defense. (May 2007)
Criticizes use of war on terror to curtail civil liberties. (Jan 2007)
Opposes Patriot Act & Iraq War. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on continuing intelligence gathering without civil oversight. (Apr 2006)
Voted NO on federalizing rules for driver licenses to hinder terrorists. (Feb 2005)

I totally agree-- the Patriot Act and some of GW's intelligence gathering have cut huge holes in our Constitution (probably illegal, the reason he couldn't keep an Attorney General)-- while giving federal bureaucracy huge powers they shouldn't have without Congressional/or Judicial oversight...Much of the Patriot Act needs to be thrown out....
Drivers licenses is again a states rights issue that all true conservatives think the states shouldn't be sticking their noses in...The Montana legislature- along with several others passed laws against going to a national ID drivers license....But remember- while Montana is dubbed a red state--it leans much closer to the Liberatarian thinkings- the reason most political pundits now call it a "purple state"....


Not strong on government reform and campaign transparency



Voted NO on requiring lobbyist disclosure of bundled donations. (May 2007)
Voted NO on restricting independent grassroots political committees. (Apr 2006)
Voted NO on campaign finance reform banning soft-money contributions. (Feb 2002)
Voted NO on banning soft money and issue ads. (Sep 1999)

Again I don't know the individual laws- probably again a constitutional issue......

Not strong on Second Amendment Rights



Voted NO on prohibiting product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers. (Oct 2005)
Voted NO on prohibiting suing gun makers & sellers for gun misuse. (Apr 2003)
Voted NO on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1. (Jun 1999)

I agree 110% on the waiting period....Don't know what the individual lawsuit laws were- but you start playing with Constituional powers when you start limiting who and who can't get access to the courts--probably the reason as he is a strong constitutionalist...

Not strong in the war on terror



We're more threatened now by staying in Iraq. (Jun 2007)
We should have declared war in Iraq, or not gone in at all. (May 2007)
Ronald Reagan had the courage to turn tail & run in Lebanon. (May 2007)
Intervention abroad incites hatred & attacks like 9/11. (May 2007)
When we go to war carelessly, the wars don't end. (May 2007)
Voted against war because Iraq was not a national threat. (May 2007)
Opposes Iraq war and opposes path toward Iran war. (Jan 2007)
Voted YES on redeploying US troops out of Iraq starting in 90 days. (May 2007)
Voted NO on declaring Iraq part of War on Terror with no exit date. (Jun 2006)
Voted NO on approving removal of Saddam & valiant service of US troops. (Mar 2004)
Voted NO on authorizing military force in Iraq. (Oct 2002)
And now 5 years into a quagmire- about 70% of the US public wishes the rest of the Congress and GW had followed suit :roll:

He's the only candidate that has made it truthfully clear- and has correctly pointed out to all the others-- that Presidents don't have the Constitutional power to go to war- or to declare war....Only the US Congress can do that- and they never have declared any war...
I see nothing wrong with having someone that not only actually remembers what the Constitution is-- but obeys it....

It tells me he has something right on the Iraq and war issues-- when almost 50% of the presidential campaign funding coming from the military is going to Paul
:roll:


I can keep going, but you can go look for yourself if you need more information. I think this is more than enough to explain why liberal Democrats are supporting Ron Paul for President. He’s better aligned with their thinking than either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.

One of his drawbacks to me is that he is a free trader-- but as such from what I can find- is not in the pockets of the Corporate world...Free trade is good-- if it is fair trade, and not to just line some Corporate interests pockets like Citibank is now with the Peru FTA....
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Red Robin said:
While you and he might agree on issues, y'all aren't conservative.

Or could it be that you are so blinded by just your abortion and gay rights issues that you forget the other issues and what many of the old true conservatives believe conservatism actually was/is/should be.... :???:

The average score in the House was only 36; the average score in the Senate was only 26. The high score (100) was once again made by Representative Ron Paul (R-TX).

Fortunately, this is an easy thing to do. The latest "Conservative Index" that has just been published by The New American, (a biweekly publication of The John Birch Society). As usual, it is an eye-opener for those who think that the Republicans in Congress are "conservative." The "Conservative Index," according to The New American, "rates congressmen based on their adherence to constitutional principles of limited government, fiscal responsibility, national sovereignty, and a traditional foreign policy of avoiding foreign entanglements." The New American views conservatism as an ideology that believes in "preserving our Constitution, the freedoms it guarantees, and the moral bedrock on which it is based."

The latest "Conservative Index" is the magazine’s third look at the 109th Congress, and was published on July 10, 2006. As in previous indexes, the votes cast by congressmen on certain key issues are assigned a plus (good) or a minus (bad). Scores from 1 to 100 are determined by dividing a congressman’s plus votes by the total number of votes cast and multiplying by 100. Thus, the higher the number, the stronger the congressman’s commitment to the constitutional principles just mentioned. The overall average score for the three indexes prepared thus far for the 109th Congress is also given.

The results of the index show, as usual, that the Republican Party is not the party of real conservatism at all. It is the party of interventionism, big government, the welfare state, the warfare state, plunder, compromises, and sellouts – just like the Democratic Party.

The average score in the House was only 36; the average score in the Senate was only 26. The high score (100) was once again made by Representative Ron Paul (R-TX).

http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance86.html
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
Let me rephrase myself so I am clear. I am not interested in any candidate that espouses your libertarian views. I am against the legalization of drugs. I am against any form of gun control. I am against abortion. I am against the redefinition of marriage. I am against funding the U.N.
I am for winning the war in Iraq. I am for campaign finance reform. I am for business, small and large.
I WONT vote for Ron Paul if he's the "republican" nominee .

Why would you quote a libertarian to prove your argument? If you're a libertarian , vote a libertarian ticket.

Lew Rockwell, founder and president of the Mises Institute in Auburn, Ala., and vice president of the Center for Libertarian Studies in Burlingame, Cal., is an opponent of the central state, its wars and its socialism.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
As an Independent- I kind of combine a little of the Liberatarian thinking ( that many things like abortion, sex issues, physician assisted mercy suicides, most criminal law & enforcement, education, etc. all should be left to locals and states) support strict fiscal conservatism, limited federal government, national sovereignty--------
some constitutionalist paleoconservative thinking (some of which mirrors the Libertarian thinking) on opposing reliance on global trading- anti FTA's, getting out of the UN, noninvolvement with foreign conflicts, tax reform, secure borders and limited LEGAL immigration, English as an official language, (and like the Libertarians) 2nd Amendment rights, strict enforcement of the Constitution, freedom of religion, and opposition to the Patriot Act ------
some Liberal (welfare for those truly in need, SS was a national contract with workers that needs to be honored, a guaranteed affordable health care for all ) -------
but very little of this new neocon Republican philosophy...I used to think they Repubs were best at protecting our borders-- but that was pre GW era.....

I know there is no candidate that fulfills all-- so will pick one that fills the most...If it ends up-being Hitlery against Gagliani, like I think it will :( -- I'll have to make my choice between the Libertarian or the Constitution candidate.... :roll:

It appears to me that if your candidate has to fill all your terms- that you may not be voting in Nov 08, unless you vote for the Constitution Party candidate still to be chosen....But they too oppose your war....

Not sure where Huckabee sets...I know he has been pro welfare for ILLEGAL immigrants-- altho he does favor securing the borders...Also believes in tax and health care reform...Supports replacing the current income tax with the Fair tax...

Huckabee is pro-life, and opposes same-sex marriages, and civil unions (to me an issue the Feds shouldn't be involved in)
Huckabee is against gun control and is an avid hunter. (OK)
Huckabee supports the death penalty (No big issue)
Huckabee has expressed support for allowing creationism and intelligent design in school classes along with evolution. However, Huckabee's position is that belief in evolution is not relevant to being President. (I hope it is because he believes that is a local and state issue)

Huckabee supports the War in Iraq, the troop surge and the continued operation of the Guantanamo Bay detention camp..(Not a big issue to me--but is to 70+% of the nation who don't agree)

That said-- I wouldn't bet $5 against $1000 that either Paul or Huckabee have a chance of being the Republican candidate.... :roll: Here you can read up on the Constitution Party- which is the closest to following your beliefs anymore : :wink: :lol:

The Constitutional Party
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_Party_%28United_States%29

Q: Are you for or against the War in Iraq?

A: We oppose the War in Iraq, both because it was embarked upon (like every other U.S. war since the Second World War) without a constitutionally-mandated declaration of war, and because it is an offensive, not a defensive war, aimed at the subjugation of a foreign regime that posed no threat to us. We believe, with the Founders, that American military forces should be used only for national defense, not to settle the quarrels of other nations, and that America’s aggressive global military posture is making us more enemies than friends. We are also opposed to all wars embarked upon under the authority of the United Nations, and are very disappointed that President Bush has repeatedly invoked UN Security Council resolutions as his primary legal justification for our invasion and occupation of Iraq.
http://www.constitutionparty.com/faqs.php
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
As an Independent- I kind of combine a little of the Liberatarian thinking ( that many things like abortion, sex issues, physician assisted mercy suicides, most criminal law & enforcement, education, etc. all should be left to locals and states) support strict fiscal conservatism, limited federal government, national sovereignty--------
some constitutionalist paleoconservative thinking (some of which mirrors the Libertarian thinking) on opposing reliance on global trading- anti FTA's, getting out of the UN, noninvolvement with foreign conflicts, tax reform, secure borders and limited LEGAL immigration, English as an official language, (and like the Libertarians) 2nd Amendment rights, strict enforcement of the Constitution, freedom of religion, and opposition to the Patriot Act ------
some Liberal (welfare for those truly in need, SS was a national contract with workers that needs to be honored, a guaranteed affordable health care for all ) -------
but very little of this new neocon Republican philosophy...I used to think they Repubs were best at protecting our borders-- but that was pre GW era.....

I know there is no candidate that fulfills all-- so will pick one that fills the most...If it ends up-being Hitlery against Gagliani, like I think it will :( -- I'll have to make my choice between the Libertarian or the Constitution candidate.... :roll:

It appears to me that if your candidate has to fill all your terms- that you may not be voting in Nov 08, unless you vote for the Constitution Party candidate still to be chosen....But they too oppose your war....

Not sure where Huckabee sets...I know he has been pro welfare for ILLEGAL immigrants-- altho he does favor securing the borders...Also believes in tax and health care reform...Supports replacing the current income tax with the Fair tax...

Huckabee is pro-life, and opposes same-sex marriages, and civil unions (to me an issue the Feds shouldn't be involved in)
Huckabee is against gun control and is an avid hunter. (OK)
Huckabee supports the death penalty (No big issue)
Huckabee has expressed support for allowing creationism and intelligent design in school classes along with evolution. However, Huckabee's position is that belief in evolution is not relevant to being President. (I hope it is because he believes that is a local and state issue)

Huckabee supports the War in Iraq, the troop surge and the continued operation of the Guantanamo Bay detention camp..(Not a big issue to me--but is to 70+% of the nation who don't agree)

That said-- I wouldn't bet $5 against $1000 that either Paul or Huckabee have a chance of being the Republican candidate.... :roll: Here you can read up on the Constitution Party- which is the closest to following your beliefs anymore : :wink: :lol:

The Constitutional Party
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_Party_%28United_States%29

Q: Are you for or against the War in Iraq?

A: We oppose the War in Iraq, both because it was embarked upon (like every other U.S. war since the Second World War) without a constitutionally-mandated declaration of war, and because it is an offensive, not a defensive war, aimed at the subjugation of a foreign regime that posed no threat to us. We believe, with the Founders, that American military forces should be used only for national defense, not to settle the quarrels of other nations, and that America’s aggressive global military posture is making us more enemies than friends. We are also opposed to all wars embarked upon under the authority of the United Nations, and are very disappointed that President Bush has repeatedly invoked UN Security Council resolutions as his primary legal justification for our invasion and occupation of Iraq.
http://www.constitutionparty.com/faqs.php


:lol: :lol:
 

Latest posts

Top