The first Bush turned out to be a tax raiser. The second one turned out to be a spendaholic. Should anyone expect the third one to be a true conservative? I think this answers the question.
“You can’t beat something with nothing, and the other side has something. I don’t like it, but they have it, and we have to be respectful and mindful of that,” Mr. Bush said.
The former president’s brother, often mentioned as a potential candidate in 2012, said President Obama’s message of hope and change during the 2008 campaign clearly resonated with Americans.
“So our ideas need to be forward looking and relevant. I felt like there was a lot of nostalgia and the good old days in the [Republican] messaging. I mean, it’s great, but it doesn’t draw people toward your cause,” Mr. Bush said.
This is what Jeb Bush said at the first meeting of the *gag* National Council for a New America (NCNA). This appears to be a group dedicated to figuring out how Republicans can be more like Democrats because Democrats seem to be winning after all. It never ceases to amaze me how dense many elected Republican leaders are. I use the term “leaders” very loosely here because there is no leadership in the Republican party.
The absurdity of saying, “You can’t beat something with nothing, and the other side has something,” is astounding. Is Jeb actually saying that Republicans have no principles? Do they need focus groups like this lame pizza party to tell them what they believe? Apparently.
This “council” is prime example. There is no need for a “New America.” We need the old America where the Constitution was respected, liberty was cherished and personal responsibility was the order of the day. These guys want to leave Reagan behind because none of them has the courage or the character to do what Reagan did. They’re all too worried about whether they’ll be liked by the media or their “good friends” across the aisle.
At this point I think the only hope Republicans have for victory in 2012 is the speed with which the negative effects of Obama’s socialist policies reach the average voter. If enough people start feeling the pinch of higher taxes and prices by then, they may vote Obama out which would allow the Republican challenger to win by default, but there is no one out there right now who is likely to be voted in by the American people.
With the recent election of Barack Obama and an overwhelmingly leftist Congress, the conservative movement is in a state of disarray. Emotions range from anger to sheer panic over how the left plans to “remake” America (in their own image, presumably).
One disturbing trend is the acceleration of the hyphenated conservative phenomenon. In desperation, some who claim to be conservatives have become overly eager to jettison certain other conservatives from the movement. The only possible explanation for this is that they want to be seen as more acceptable to liberals.
The conservative “intelligentsia” have bemoaned a mythical rise of “anti-intellectualism” within the conservative ranks. This typically is a veiled expression of their definition of “intellectual” which means “having ideas which agree with my own.” The people who were so quick to dump on Sarah Palin for speaking her mind on the campaign trail or for being dumbfounded by idiotic and intentionally deceptive questions asked by interviewers fall into this category. Some of them even endorsed Obama because they lusted after his intellect, which only seems available in the presence of a teleprompter. Frankly, I find it very ironic that someone claiming to be conservative while endorsing the most left leaning candidate in the history of the U.S. Presidency can criticize anyone on the basis of their intellect.
Then there are the “conservatives” who wish to limit conservatism to purely fiscal matters. This is of course an attempt to ingratiate themselves with the left by rejecting so-called “social conservatives.” The latter being defined as anyone who, like the founding fathers, considers objective truth and morality to be intrinsically connected to authentic liberty. These so-called “fiscal conservatives” range from left wingers who understand how to balance a checkbook to libertarians who want to legalize heroin to be sold over the counter at the local CVS. Basically, as near as I can determine, “fiscal conservatives” are people who don’t want the government to spend too much money but who want to bury their heads in the sand regarding serious moral discussions about late term abortions, euthanasia, or homosexual “marriage.”
For those who like their definitions fluid and vague there are the “neo-cons” and “paleo-cons.”
Getting to the point of all this, I have coined a new “con” for myself—anthropo-con. From the Greek, anthropo- meaning person or man (in the non-gender-specific sense) and -con for conservative. Basically this means that I am a human conservative, a conservative who is concerned with the human person. Respect for the human person and his/her inalienable rights is the foundation upon which our Constitution is built. The overly hyphenated crowd inevitably deny some aspect of the human person in their attempts to avoid defending opinions which might be unpopular.
This is about returning to basic principles, to the philosophy of why the unpopular opinions are the most conservative ones. Bipartisanship and compromise are unacceptable on certain issues because violating the natural rights of a person less than someone else proposes to violate them is not a solution. Conservatives need to return to the beginning on many arguments and retreat from the rabbit holes into which we have been lured for too long. Stop trying to come up with less detestable plans to address the left’s false premises. Stop worrying about being portrayed as the party of “no.” When the proposal on the table is evil, being the party of “no” is a badge of honor even if perky news anchors don’t acknowledge it.