• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

CPAC chair: Christie didn't 'deserve' an invite this year

Re: CPAC head: Christie "doesn't deserve" to be a Republican

If you had a social liberal who actually believed in true conservatism, you'd likely be talking to a Canadian, not an American. American liberals are too busy trying to get government into every crevice of every person's life, trying to have government codify every possible personal right they can dream of instead of leaving government to the tasks they are best able to manage. But I appreciate your thoughts - I wish you luck and much success in that regard.

What if you could tweak social norms to encourage one of the more original virtues of social conservatives, by using ideas and means now thought to be "liberal" and "government"? For instance, government and faith-based initiatives were recently started under George W. Bush, but have also been supported by President Obama.
 
Re: CPAC head: Christie "doesn't deserve" to be a Republican

This can't be emphasized enough.

There was a time, in the early 19th century, when the policies of those social classes that considered themselves "conservative" - Northeastern industrialists, Anglican clergymen, Anglophiles, etc. - were in favor of a stronger central government, because that was the model that had been established in England prior to, during and after the American Revolutionary War, and consequentially that was what they knew and favored. That was their tradition. These Federalists were Statists - and they were also conservative.

Or going back to central authority of government at the hands of a monarch, or rule by the aristoi? The people is a pretty recent phenomenon, and when it started, we cannot forget that some accused other Founding Fathers of being too fond of the, at the time, more conservative views of government.
 
Re: CPAC head: Christie "doesn't deserve" to be a Republican

This leads me to ask this question:

Was Reagan a True Conservative?

I mean, there were some things he did that weren't conservative, right?
 
Re: CPAC head: Christie "doesn't deserve" to be a Republican

This leads me to ask this question:

Was Reagan a True Conservative?

I mean, there were some things he did that weren't conservative, right?

If you asked a conservative in 1828 this, he'd say "no", and that Reagan had sold out to the radical Jacksonians in the Planter Region.
 
Re: CPAC head: Christie "doesn't deserve" to be a Republican

His actions says he is a RINO.



The Mitt Romney Deception
Despite recent statements across the country by Governor Mitt Romney claiming he's pro-life, pro-family and a committed conservative, a broad investigation of his actual statements, actions, and public positions over the years indicates that he has spent his entire career speaking and governing as a liberal - and that his new found conversion to conservatism very likely coincides with his candidacy for the presidency.


The Mitt Romney Deception
Socialized medicine.

The Mitt Romney Deception
Severe gun control

The Mitt Romney Deception
Abortion Issues

The Mitt Romney Deception
Pro-gay marriage

The Mitt Romney Deception
Appointed gay and liberal judges to positions.


Lawn work at Romney's home still done by illegal immigrants - Local News Updates - The Boston Globe
Standing on stage at a Republican debate on the Gulf Coast of Florida last week, Mitt Romney repeatedly lashed out at rival Rudy Giuliani for providing sanctuary to illegal immigrants in New York City.

Yet, the very next morning, on Thursday, at least two illegal immigrants stepped out of a hulking maroon pickup truck in the driveway of Romney's Belmont house, then proceeded to spend several hours raking leaves, clearing debris from Romney's tennis court, and loading the refuse back on to the truck.

In fact, their work was part of a regular pattern. Despite a Globe story in Dec. 2006 that highlighted Romney's use of illegal immigrants to tend to his lawn, Romney continued to employ the same landscaping company -- until today. The landscaping company, in turn, continued to employ illegal immigrants.


Why We Hate Mitt Romney So Much :: :: FITSNewsFITSNews
Seriously, if this guy isn’t struck by lightning at some point during the 2008 campaign there’s no justice in the world. After all, it’s one thing to flip-flop on every issue under the sun in an effort to fool people into thinking you’re something you’re not, but Romney is now taking the art of bull***** to a whole new level - attacking people for doing the same stuff he did.

Romney’s latest swipe alleges that Hizzoner Giuliani is “soft on immigration” because he turned New York into a “sanctuary city” for illegal immigrants.

Of course what Romney failed to mention was that three cities in Massachusetts formally declared themselves to be “sanctuary cities” (i.e. cities that promise to provide government services to illegal immigrants) during his term as governor, and Romney did absolutely nothing about it.



Page 2: Giuliani Vows to End Illegal Immigration - ABC News

Sanctuary Cities Under Romney

But Giuliani's campaign said that Romney's aggressive charge on this issue is inconsistent with Romney's record. While governor of Massachusetts from 2003 until 2007, three cities in Romney's home state – Somerville, Cambridge, and Orleans -- either declared or reissued declarations stating that they are in essence sanctuary cities.

Certainly, but you have to have a strong, vibrant...perceived, middle ground in the party in order to gain more influence at the negotiating table and in the White House. In the quest for mythology, we forget many of the complexities of the Reagan years, which certainly were more complicated than the post-Goldwaterites are leading us to believe.
 
Re: CPAC head: Christie "doesn't deserve" to be a Republican

His actions says he is a RINO.

i totally agree. Which leads to the question of why conservatives backed him when they had some true conservatives in the GOP primary last year? If it was all about purity you could have had perry, bachman, or Santorum. Hell, even ron paul was a better choice. One might note that they knew conservative purity was a fail for a presidential election. The country does not want conservative purity, and embracing it is embracing failure. Romney was put in the election because his relative liberal attitude was a better opposition to Obama. then he completely flip flopped on that wisdom and went ultracon. Why go for the electable middle ground in the primaries and then throw it all away in the election? I just don't understand why the guy is not completely under the bus at this point.
 
Re: CPAC head: Christie "doesn't deserve" to be a Republican

What if you could tweak social norms to encourage one of the more original virtues of social conservatives, by using ideas and means now thought to be "liberal" and "government"? For instance, government and faith-based initiatives were recently started under George W. Bush, but have also been supported by President Obama.

It's entirely appropriate for a President to inspire the people, promote their better selves, to community/charitable involvement. It is not appropriate, in my view, to do that through taxpayer dollars, often with social engineering strings attached.
 
Re: CPAC head: Christie "doesn't deserve" to be a Republican

Or going back to central authority of government at the hands of a monarch, or rule by the aristoi? The people is a pretty recent phenomenon, and when it started, we cannot forget that some accused other Founding Fathers of being too fond of the, at the time, more conservative views of government.

Whenabout did this start changing? I assume sometime during the Gilded Age; in my head, I always use the inauguration of Rutherfraud and the end of Reconstruction as the starting-point for the glacially-slow shift of the Republicans to identify with The Established Order in full, but I may be wrong. I feel that there's an entire unwritten history to be uncovered here.
 
Re: CPAC head: Christie "doesn't deserve" to be a Republican

it is amazing how one year ago they did not really want romney that much because he was so impure.

I believe Romney gave one of the better, most well received, speeches at last year's CPAC.
 
CPAC chair: Christie didn't 'deserve' an invite this year - First Read



The bit in bold particularly bothers me. Everyone needs to "live by the parameters of the movement"? Does that include individuals who are not conservative and who do not desire to live like a conservative lives? I thought individualism was a conservative trait (not that our conservatives would know authentic individualism if it punched them in the nose)? How far is Cardenas willing to go to force others to "live by the parameters of the movement"?

At any rate, demanding ideological purity certainly is not convincing. I'm one of those rarities who do not believe that any ideology actually correlates to reality one-to-one, and that the mark of a successful ideology is how well it adapts itself to the conditions of material reality, what it can trade off and where it can hold firm. An insistence on purity makes me less convinced, not more.

Lefty analysis of conservative politics is usually intended to be insulting, but generally only results in self-parody. :roll:
 
Re: CPAC head: Christie "doesn't deserve" to be a Republican

This leads me to ask this question:

Was Reagan a True Conservative?

I mean, there were some things he did that weren't conservative, right?

First, there is no true conservative.

Second of all, the office determines the outcome. You'll notice quickly, that in the way that most people quantify positions as liberal, conservative, moderate, libertarian, statist, etc etc. things change from when someone is an elected official in our legislative branch or elsewhere and finally elected to the White House. Governing reality kicks in quickly and pulls the candidate in directions he could not have the luxury of resisting. This is why a Rand Paul will look more conservative than Reagan if you want to quantify the results.

Third of all, he was complicated and was in his own time. Ronald Reagan voted many times for FDR, and never repudiated doing so, but had a swing toward Goldwater-branded conservatism later in life. This put him ideologically more toward small government, low taxes, and so forth. However, governing reality kicks in and is matched with his votes for FDR. He made peace with the FDR/Johnson era programs, but sought to curb their excesses. So in some sense, a limited sense, you can say it was neoconservative (never forgetting that you should be very careful about putting Presidents in a box). His embrace of supply-side economics was a conservative variety dating back to a bit prior to FDR, but as had been said before, due to governing reality, taxes were increased. His embrace of populist rhetoric, you can suggest is classically not conservative, but had since been identified with a branch of conservatism after the Whigs died out.
 
Re: CPAC head: Christie "doesn't deserve" to be a Republican

If you asked a conservative in 1828 this, he'd say "no", and that Reagan had sold out to the radical Jacksonians in the Planter Region.

A conservative in 1828 would have been a monarchist. In the U.S. of 1828 there were no conservatives.:cool:
 
Re: CPAC head: Christie "doesn't deserve" to be a Republican

I believe Romney gave one of the better, most well received, speeches at last year's CPAC.

You are correct, but many posters are inhibited by a display of accurate memory. Good afternoon, CJ.
 
Re: CPAC head: Christie "doesn't deserve" to be a Republican

A conservative in 1828 would have been a monarchist. In the U.S. of 1828 there were no conservatives.:cool:

On the contrary: in the U.S. of 1828, the conservatives were those whose closest descendants are Yankee Democrats today. And not really a whole Hell of a lot changed in their worldview between then and now, except their classism has taken on different dimensions.
 
Re: CPAC head: Christie "doesn't deserve" to be a Republican

Whenabout did this start changing? I assume sometime during the Gilded Age; in my head, I always use the inauguration of Rutherfraud and the end of Reconstruction as the starting-point for the glacially-slow shift of the Republicans to identify with The Established Order in full, but I may be wrong. I feel that there's an entire unwritten history to be uncovered here.

If I knew so little history as evidenced by this post, I would avoid this sort of topic.:roll:
 
Re: CPAC head: Christie "doesn't deserve" to be a Republican

You are correct, but many posters are inhibited by a display of accurate memory. Good afternoon, CJ.

Good afternoon to you as well 2M - hope all is well.
 
Re: CPAC head: Christie "doesn't deserve" to be a Republican

A conservative in 1828 would have been a monarchist. In the U.S. of 1828 there were no conservatives.:cool:

The label would have been anachronistic to some small extent, but then a wholesale rejection would preclude discussions of Cato the Elder.
 
Re: CPAC head: Christie "doesn't deserve" to be a Republican

If I knew so little history as evidenced by this post, I would avoid this sort of topic.:roll:

You guys are all hard core and far more knowledgable on the subject than I'll ever be so I'll keep quiet. My only original point was that I'll bet there are tens of millions of people out there who would gladly support a party that believed in small, efficient government that valued and protected taxpayer dollars and at the same time had no interest in getting involved in social engineering and the private lives of the citizenry.
 
Re: CPAC head: Christie "doesn't deserve" to be a Republican

On the contrary: in the U.S. of 1828, the conservatives were those whose closest descendants are Yankee Democrats today. And not really a whole Hell of a lot changed in their worldview between then and now, except their classism has taken on different dimensions.

Ahistorical nonsense.:roll:
 
CPAC chair: Christie didn't 'deserve' an invite this year - First Read



The bit in bold particularly bothers me. Everyone needs to "live by the parameters of the movement"? Does that include individuals who are not conservative and who do not desire to live like a conservative lives? I thought individualism was a conservative trait (not that our conservatives would know authentic individualism if it punched them in the nose)? How far is Cardenas willing to go to force others to "live by the parameters of the movement"?

At any rate, demanding ideological purity certainly is not convincing. I'm one of those rarities who do not believe that any ideology actually correlates to reality one-to-one, and that the mark of a successful ideology is how well it adapts itself to the conditions of material reality, what it can trade off and where it can hold firm. An insistence on purity makes me less convinced, not more.

No surprise really. The group obviously doesn't foster conservatism. It fosters partisanship. I wouldn't have anything to do with them personally. I'm loyal only to my own opinions and beliefs.
 
Re: CPAC head: Christie "doesn't deserve" to be a Republican

You guys are all hard core and far more knowledgable on the subject than I'll ever be so I'll keep quiet. My only original point was that I'll bet there are tens of millions of people out there who would gladly support a party that believed in small, efficient government that valued and protected taxpayer dollars and at the same time had no interest in getting involved in social engineering and the private lives of the citizenry.

I'd support them in a heartbeat!:D
 
Back
Top Bottom