By the Way, Conservatism is Dead

Possibly , but many of the extremists on the far right are middle and lower class " Conservatives " who think that government entitlements are destroying America. These people have neither money nor power.

i will back you up on that.. but .. i think there is a real conservatism.. Unfortunately.. people like Vigurie, and Buckley are no longer a voice for it.. as you need a modicum of intelligence to grasp it. On the other hand, the type of screed being bandied about by Palin, Beck, Lamebaugh, and the Tparty is only understandable by moonbats. Unfortunately, there is no shortage of moonbats, as the conditions now in place due to global warning have made their population explode(sc).

CINO's Conservatives in name only

People are conservatives when they fear losing something. They become liberals when they hope to gain something.

There are still a few idiots with negative net assets who are still voting Republican because they don't want their negative wealth going to welfare queens. But once the banks finally get hold of them, they'll be Democrats too.

#2.5:But once the banks finally get hold of them, they'll be Democrats too.

Pretty good thinking! Sounds true, too!

# 2

the conservative republican is extinct, leaving the party's helm to a few white-collar criminals

# 2.1

Sold American

# 2.2

they should stop cashing their government checks and sell their RV's

# 2.5

let the selective memories of the narrow-minded facilitate their expedited loss of wealth

Palin, Beck, Lamebaugh, and the Tparty is only understandable by moonbats

Moonbats are on the left and wingnuts are on the right.

here you go...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/senate/2010_elections_senate_map_no_toss_ups.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/generic_congressional_vote-901.html

its early yet. but these are a good indication.

you asked for proof. accept it or not, an aggregate of polls is a good indication. repubs rarely lead in general ballot and now they lead in many polls and not just ones like rasmussen. there is a push for the GOP to get back to conservative roots.... how many candidates reflect that? i do not know, I have not researched.

but conservatism is not dead.

hell, just a year ago repubs in general were gone as a party according to the dems and now the repubs look to gain seats. when anyone declares anything dead in the country.... they are usually wrong.

only in the eyes of Rush and Limbaugh who have a history of taking you people down the path that leads to a cliff. BTW a landlide is not a small shift either.

Conservatism is definitely not dead. It might have been hijacked for a bit by Republicrats but all of the wishing and hoping on the part of liberal progressives will not help them in 2010 and 2012.

Both parties have had the idea that government has to be the main catalyst and arbiter for positive change instead of being a referee or umpire. The problem is that all of the well-meaning intent that has spawned the growth of government has been a demonstration that the more time elapses the more we seem to move away from our moorings as a Republic. The direction in which we are trending is not positive... The changes we are currently seeing are now tugging at our moorings and the ropes are fraying.

Also with finance reform I would love to see how they spin being in favor of the banks.

And the stimulus as well......in Florida, there was 4000 jobs DUE TO A PROJECT FROM THE STIMULUS PLAN....and these m(asses)still biatch about that.

Today, the foreclosure help will chip in with owners whose houses have dipped below the mortgage rate. This will help consumers and not banks.

People biatch and they know now of what they speak!!

what project from the stimulus? where in florida? part time jobs? full time jobs? did it create jobs or keep existing jobs?

why is it the responsibility of the common tax payer to help others with a mortgage that they cannot afford? why should i, who have always lived with in my means, help others who haven't? foreclosures affect a small percentage of our country. why should the majority be penalized to make up for the short comings of a few.

the overwhelming majority of americans are in favor of heath care reform. what many people are opposed to is the bill that passed. it does very little to lower cost for the majority of americans. it taxes the majority of americans to provide for the few who cannot afford overpriced heath care. why are 26 year old adults allowed to be covered under their parents plans? why are unions exempt from taxes on cadilac plans? why did the current administration not go after hospitals and pharmaceutical companies in an effort to bring down cost?

i don't know if conservatism is dead or not. i do know that there has been a swing from republican to democrat and now back towards republican ideas. not that they really have too many. perhaps the majority of people are just tired of the government in general and no matter how hard the government tries to buy people off they are waking up to the fact that our system of government needs a wake up call themselves. do you know how many people are disappointed when they are finding out that there is no free heath care?

The only way anybody could be not in favor or in favor of the health care bill is after its implementation and it not working. Everything else is pure speculation from both sides. All of this doom and gloom we have seen before with civil rights legislation Medicare and every minimum wage increase and they were all wrong with their prognostications. Tea baggers are the ones who want the rich's tax cuts reinstituted and theis is a a way to energize the base of the Republican party.

that is a good point. no one truly knows how the bill will work. i think i do raise some good questions about how the bill was formulated though. no one seems to be able to answer my questions to my satisfaction.

What question do you want answered. This bill was debated for twenty years. It is patterned after a republican bill in effect in Mass that was championed by Mitt Romney a republican. There are many republican items in the bill. They are afraid to speak up because they have been told to shut up and tow the line or else. Is the bill perfect? If it is its a miracle. But here is the deal it got passed with input from only one side of the political spectrum because the other side decided to take their ball and go home.

i could care less if it was a republican bill or a democrat bill or a klingon bill. you would think after 20 years of debate that our elected leaders could have come up with a perfect bill. if it is modeled after the massachessetts plan we are in trouble. they are already way over projected costs. how could it have ideas from both sides included in it if one side "decided to take their ball and go home"? i would like to know why unions are tax exempt on their cadilac plans. i would like to know why 26 year old "children" are allowed to be covered under their parent's insurance. most importantly i would like to know why president obama and congress did not go after hospitals and pharmaceutical companies in an effort to cut cost. they certainly are as responsible as insurance companies in driving up the cost of heath care. they work for profit too.

Wow if that s all you got on he bill it is better than I thought it was.

#5.5:that is a good point. no one truly knows how the bill will work. i think i do raise some good questions about how the bill was formulated though. no one seems to be able to answer my questions to my satisfaction.

I just want to correct something that has been stated here on NV, and you are repeating the same inaccuracy: "knows how the bill will work". This is the LAW now and no longer a bill. I think it is important that we refer to this syntactically correct as the LAW, and not a bill.

It is also important to know this as the Law it is accorded all of the authority of the Law that it carries.

#5.7:most importantly i would like to know why president obama and congress did not go after hospitals and pharmaceutical companies in an effort to cut cost. they certainly are as responsible as insurance companies in driving up the cost of heath care. they work for profit too.

ShawnD19: Aren't you supposed to ask your congressional representative, either in the house of representatives or your assigned senator, these questions? This is why you choose representatives for your state. They ask that you give them comments, suggestions, etc. don't they?

If they don't ask for your input, you should perhaps think about replacing them in the next election - and tell them why!

so in other words no one has any answers to the questions that i present to you. in other words there is no explanation as to why certain elements of the rising cost of heath care were ignored or overlooked. that is what i thought.

They are filled with hate

Ah yes, the "hate" card. And I often find those who are saying the conservatives are spouting "hate speech" are doing so themselves but are just too tied in their double standards to notice. The irony is amusing to say the least.

This is the LAW now and no longer a bill. I think it is important that we refer to this syntactically correct as the LAW, and not a bill.

And then the hair splitting police arrive from the oh-so-sensitive left.

so in other words no one has any answers to the questions that i present to you. in other words there is no explanation as to why certain elements of the rising cost of heath care were ignored or overlooked. that is what i thought.

Yep, it is exactly as you thought.

#5.11:so in other words no one has any answers to the questions that i present to you. in other words there is no explanation as to why certain elements of the rising cost of heath care were ignored or overlooked. that is what i thought.

In other words, you should ask your representatives why they did not bring up certain elements of the rising costs of health care, and if they did bring them up, why they were either ignored or overlooked. I don't think the people here on Newsvine -or anyone else not present during the bill writing can answer the "why's and wherefores" regarding the Health Care Reform Law.

In addition, your representatives were there in the room while the "sausage-making" was happening at the time it was happening. The representatives are the ones who would know the answers as to "why" something did or did not happen. Your questions are rhetorical and theoretical at best.

okay. can anyone give me theoretical answers?

what project from the stimulus? where in florida? part time jobs? full time jobs? did it create jobs or keep existing jobs?

I live in Florida-I also own a business. Yes there are numerous stimulus projects-most are new, some are renewed, and the real kicker is that many businesses like mine are now privy to actually bid on these projects-you see for the past ten years, it has always been the same old same old companies bidding and winning government contracts, us small guys never even got a chance. So I can say without a doubt that me and my company have more chance os success NOW than I have ever had-even with a slow economy.

And, before you start with the whole "government job" thing-like I stated before-I live in Florida-on the space coast-every single job, every single company-whether private or government, whether related to space flight or not, is 100 % dependent on NASA's budget. Around here, you either work for NASA, or you work for someone who does, or you work for a private company that only exists because of NASA's budget. These people have been sucking off the government teet for the better part of a century, but screaming about wasting government money, and wanting the private sector to take over most if not every industry. Now that Obama is finally giving them what they want-turning down the next vehicle program, and wanting to privatize space flight-they are calling foul.

The point is this, most of us work for a government agency in some, way or form. Just because we are not on the state or fed payroll, does not mean that we "did it all on our own, without the government"

power,

thanks for the links. let me answer my own questions, theoretically. unions are exempt from paying taxes on their cadilac insurance plans because they contributed enormous amounts of money to president obama's election campaign and they are huge contributors to the democratic party. also because andy sterns, head of the sciu, was a major player in shaping the heath insurance reform bill. excuse me, law. any one doubt this? big pharma escaped the wrath of the white house because they paid a pittance to be allowed to continue business as usual. big pharma paid it's homage fee to the white house. does any one doubt this? similarly the ama threw it's support behind the heath care bill, excuse me law, in return for the current administration to turn a blind eye towards the exorbitant amount of money they charge for hospital services. once again, pay homage, get a free pass to continue business as usual. does any one doubt this?

when president obama was elected i along with 70% of the country, was so hopeful that change was indeed coming to washington. the only change that has occurred has been different special interest groups represented than the republican special interest groups. maybe i am just a naive fool. i am pretty much sick of government in general and both republicans and democrats in particular.

i have kind of veered off on a different topic than this author intended and for that i apologize. however to get back on subject i don't think that conservatism is dead. not the idea of conservatism. not that either party actually practices conservatism or financial restraint. i do know that as of now the democrats appear to be in trouble and could potentially lose, by my count, as many as 9 seats in the senate. it doesn't really matter though. the elected officials in washington will continue on their path towards repaying their friends and lining their pockets until we have had enough and speak out with our votes.

Shawn

You have to be joking when you said unions are exempt from paying taxes on their Cadillac insurance plans.

General Motors provides and pays for the employee insurance not the UAW.

Please grow up and get off the crack pipe and out of Fox New's jock strap.

renard,

please show me in the heath care bill where it says that cadilac plans will be taxed before 2018. it is also highly doubtful that this will be enacted due to it's unpopularity.

i will let the insults pass. i refuse to stoop to your level and their is too much of that kind of thing on here anyway.

Ill be glad to google the benefits Fl has received from the stimulus is you can't on your own.

There is already 1 of many construction projects and there was a line of over 4000 people waiting for those jobs. This was a direct result of the stimulus.

OF COURSE SOME OF THESE M(ASSES) WILL PROUDLY HATE OBAMA....WHILE ENJOYING BENEFITS THAT HIS ADMINISTRATION HAD DONE. Let's not get into health care.

Only one of the state's representatives voted for this stimulus. Time to turn this state BLUE. We did vote Obama but man, Rubio.....eek!!!!!

kareem,

i thought you had personal knowledge of stimulus benefits. that is the way you made it sound in your post and that is why i was asking. i personally haven't seen any stimulus benefits although i am sure that there are some.

Sorry for the confusion....:)

no biggie. i am still trying to wrap my head around the stimulus bill. like most things in politics supporters can give examples a, b and c to make their case and opponents can use x, y and z to make their case. i find that the truth generally lies some where in between.

AMAZING ...once again The progressiveness want to tell the conservatives what is best for them! I scratch my head and wonder..just why would you tell me how to win? If you want to win!

My only conclusion is you DON'T WANT ME TO WIN..and you try to feed us strategies that you know will FAIL! GUESS WHAT ..We can read write and VOTE! Its no wonder that the progressives want to control and limit the Internet.. Information is power....

We are informed and armed with truth and facts... My Progressive friends don't be afraid of bibles of guns... we will speak at the ballot box...loud and clear! Yes there is a movement to take this country back to a more conservative path...but it will be done the way America has always, made change...AT THE BALLOT BOX!

Your fear of the Tea Party folks ..should only be that THEY ARE VOTERS! And they will show -up and VOTE! Think about it ... if they will spend their time and money to go out and protest ... You know DAMN WELL they will go to the polling places and vote!

I know the conservatives ..are going to come out and VOTE.. Can you promise that the PROGRESSIVES... will be there? I think not ..and you already know it!

RINO'S and progressive Democrats are on the endangered species list.. Because they will both be voted out of office!

No violence.. VOTES! The silent majority is awake and no longer SILENT!

We are awake...We are alive ..and We are informed! Lets play! 2010 will make 1994 look like a buzzer win!

As a side note .... 1994 was the first time that a Speaker of the House lost their er-election bid... It would be way to kwel to see Speaker Pelosi lose... but that is not in the realm of reality being, where she is from. But Can't we sent another Senate Majority Leader to his retirement !!!!!! First there was Tom Daschele and now there will be Harry Reid!

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/02/opinion/02brooks.html

they dont have as much power as you think.

per Profchaos....

The Republican Party is unpopular because it’s more interested in pleasing Rush’s ghosts than actual people. The party is leaderless right now because nobody has the guts to step outside the rigid parameters enforced by the radio jocks and create a new party identity. The party is losing because it has adopted a radio entertainer’s niche-building strategy, while abandoning the politician’s coalition-building strategy.

It sounds so close to impossible when you present it back to me, almost like wishful thinking. Was that your point?

I would present, as a solid beginning, the presentation of facts on a colossal level to the general American Public as a start. One of the most prevalent counters to the new Health Care Program, during its conception, revision(s), presentation and legislation was that there was/is not enough facts to judge the program correctly and its potential effects on the Nation. To squelch these doubts is not going to be easy nor is it going to ever be settled by speeches, grand as they may be.

We need to know what they know, all facts, all potentials, all numbers, without reservation, restriction or selection presented in an unbiased manner as the CBO would present their findings to Congress. You may say that that mission has already been accomplished but the CBO was only the accounting side. We need to know what the goals and assumptions are that have been drawn by both parties and all independent sources presented in a cohesive manner that can paint a clear picture.

I don't believe that facts are things that may be denied without thorough and provable research. Perhaps if we started acting like educated adults and talked to like educated adults, we may start talking and working like educated adults. This nation really deserves nothing less. This needs to start with us, not just our children or their children.

#7.4:I don't believe that facts are things that may be denied without thorough and provable research. Perhaps if we started acting like educated adults and talked to like educated adults, we may start talking and working like educated adults. This nation really deserves nothing less. This needs to start with us, not just our children or their children.

I am hoping that this not off-topic but it is relevant to education [in general] which is what I believe we are discussing. So to borrow your phrase yank, here goes:

I knew there was going to be a backlash against education when our current President, Barack Obama, presented as a graduate of an Ivy League school, Harvard. All of a sudden, education became a piranha; something that was seen as a curse for all to obtain. Suddenly, it became a bragging point and badge of honor to provide "home schooling" sometimes from a trailer park none the less.There is nothing inherently wrong with living in a trailer park, but how much schooling is really going on? Who is regulating the learning methods? is there a Board of Education that has the responsibility, and jurisdiction, of overseeing the progress of these children?

I then noticed that the signs of the Teabaggers had a lot of misspelled words and phrases, with justifying remarks accompanying the screams and hollers when presented with a microphone at the Town Hall rallies. Then by being educated, you received a label and made you an "elite"; this also made you different and "not like us or one of us". Thus another "separation" of sorts.

Then came the issue of affirmative action being the reason the President went to this prestigious Ivy League school. Then came "anything else you wanted to say that was wrong with being educated". So now education has become a "whipping boy" for everyone that is not educated. Educational funding is being gutted, first in a lot of instances, and seen as not important and even a non priority, especially where the repugs are concerned, in other instances.

When did education become secondary to a nation where it had always seen as a priority? Take for instance, when the President of the United States was not allowed to speak to school children to tell them to stay in school! How was this seen as acceptable? or even allowable?

I present to you that it is all strictly based on politics of the right wing. It is based on the fact that we have an intelligent, educated President who wants to see all of America educated like he is. A President who knows that in order to remain in the forefront of the world's race to the top, it will take the brightest and best minds that can compete for global jobs. A President who knows that education is still the key to reaching this goal and getting the job done.

But there are others who disagree. The more people they can keep ignorant and in the dark, the easier they will be led to slaughter and vote as they are told without posing any questions.

Hi Mary Ellen -

I think that there is a very defined time defining the deterioration of public education. That is in the late 60s and early 70s when the focus of education was purposely shifted away from traditional educational methods, shifted from the group and directed toward the individual. in effect introducing special needs babysitting and the funds and talent needed for it rather than for the needs of the majority.

Almost coincidentally a technique called mainstreaming was introduced which allowed Boards of Education to politicize priorities based on the "conservative" or "progressive" fiscal approach rather than on the needs and requirements of the majority of students. Talented and gifted students were used as artificial "lifting tools" and were otherwise completely ignored in the system. In the meanwhile, unfunded mandates began arriving and placed even more fiscal pressures on school districts. No Child Left Behind may have seemed noble on the surface but it was insidious in its result.

The net effect of all this was a general downgrading of education priorities and goals, a race to the bottom if you will...and it was all based on politicized money. The "conservative" approach has been fiscally enforced and the "progressive" approach has been robbed of funding through the ever-present primary fiscal responsibilities tool, cutbacks.

We are not only being robbed of our money, our ability to think is being stolen from right behind our noses.

Education has turned into a nightmare in that we are teaching children to test and not teaching them to be lifelong learners. There are so many undereducated people in our society we should be ashamed. Reducing education funds blaming teachers for the low test scores and levels the children learn is just another debacle in the string of lies for Conservatives. Education is just another money making venture...keep them ignorant, poor and struggling so resources can be siphoned off for special interests. It is obvious with the mindset of many conservatives education is a threat and competition not an asset.

Conservatism has two faces William F Buckley/Goldwater and Ann Rands version which is what the prevailing Republicans preach. So to speak they are following a Russian in their way of thinking

"I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason. If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest follows. Ann Rand

egoism: an excessive or exaggerated sense of self-importance; ethical egoism, the doctrine that holds that individuals ought to do what is in their self-interest

"If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest follows."

Cincy: Great post. I read everything Ayn Rand wrote when I was in college. Some of her ideas were well-thought out, although there was always the ghost of vehement, even pathological, anti-communism just under the surface that interfered with the integrity of the rationale. That is, her views reflected the extreme of another extreme, much like the former smoker often becomes about people who smoke. They also portrayed narcissism (i.e. "egoism") as basically a sacrament.

However, the one tenet that I gleaned from all this (often tiresome) reading was that reason (logic) must prevail in all circumstances, as identified in your quote. Spending as much on "Defense" as "Health and Human Services" does not qualify as "reason" or logic. The right has apparently forgotten this on a grand scale. Until they can accept all of Rand's message, and not just part of it, they are merely posers and name-droppers.

Quite simply, the left generally embraces the idea that government should be powerful.

The reason you are seeing outrage and anger from people on the right is because they are fighting against the new wave of government intrusion into their lives. Those people don't want the government to take care of them like they are children. They don't want the government there to tell them what they can eat, how long they can run their air conditioner, when to turn off their lights, how many hours they are allowed to work, etc. The typical right-wing mindset is that these types of things don't need to be dictated to them from some politician in a far off city.

People on the left usually want the government to dictate restrictions on people. They want to control how much energy people use, what foods they can eat, how much they exercise, how much people pay their employees, etc. They are fine with the government using its power to exercise this control on other people. In other words, their typical mindset is just fine with a ruler or ruling class to dictate instructions to the people. They believe these ruling elites are generally smarter than the masses and will obviously make much better decisions.

Its two different mindsets and worldviews. It isn't about conservatism vs liberalism. Its really about individualism vs collectivism. There are collectivists in the Republican party as well who believe they should be dictating how individuals live their lives.

Right now, its the collectivists that are ruling the country to the detriment of individuals.

Hello WatchtheOtherHand

You mention that liberals support a powerful government.

Who is running the war on drugs? Is it the right or left? Or have both parties just come to an agreement that the war on drugs must continue? Billions of dollars toward a prohibition that a true conservative might say the government does not have the right to enact.

Which freedom, if any, does the right offer me? It's just taxes, right? Instead of making people pay taxes, we just ring up government functions as debt? What else do conservatives offer?

Would the right be interested in allowing people to be able to enter into whatever contracts between themselves they want to enter into? Why not? Is it because marriage is sacred? So we have theocratic laws now to support the sacredness of things?

Would the right be interested in not having US troops stationed all over the globe? The US never leaves anywhere. We are still occupying WWII countries.

In my perception, the right wing does not offer freedom. They want a huge powerful government.. soldiers stationed all over the globe... and every backwater Sheriiff's department from Maine to Maui gets black helicopters and no-knock warrants.

What's the answer? What is a single freedom that conservatives support? Owning guns I guess...

Is that the litmus test for a conservative?

If you want a global American empire, tight controls over marijuana, tight controls over social structure... but want to carry a gun... are you then conservative?

Both of you seem to fail to understand the platforms of each of these labels that you continually toss around.

"Conservatives" generally want economic freedom, but restrictions on social freedoms.

"liberals" generally want social freedom, but restrictions on economic freedoms.

"Libertarians" generally want BOTH maximum social freedom and economic freedom.

"Progressives" generally want both restrictions on social and economic freedom.

I, myself, qualify as a libertarian. Republican and Democratic parties are made up of individuals that qualify under these 'labels'. The Republican Party is generally made up of Conservatives and Progressives, while the Democratic Party is generally made up of Liberals and Progressives.

Just look at the things you rage against most about what you consider the 'enemy' party. Most of the time you are raging against the Progressives in the opposing party, and giving a free pass to the Progressives in your OWN party.

The typical party makeup of BOTH parties right now is heavy on the Progressives, who want more government power to FORCE their way of life on the other side.

The Republican Party is generally made up of Conservatives and Progressives, while the Democratic Party is generally made up of Liberals and Progressives.

What is Progressive about the Republican party? They spend more time talking about going back to something or another than any bunch I've ever seen.

Progressives are the title they gave themselves. Its a bit of a misnomer, actually, unless you believe as they do that PROGRESS is people being controlled in every aspect of their lives by the government. To them, thats progress.

There are plenty of Progressives in the Republican party, though certainly not as many as are currently in the Democratic party.

Kepp you silly cut and pastes you will need them the day after the election.

The postmortem on Conservativism is premature.

The author is correct in pointing out the failures of the Conservative revolution. However, it has only seemed to have invigorate the group.

The "true believers" seem to see themselves as underdogs. People say Americans love a winner. They actually rally for underdogs even when the facts do not warrant support.

Also curious is the shift in the parties. What was once moderate positions are now considered Left-leaning. What was once extreme Right ideas have been characterized as main stream.

If you go back and look at statements made by the Right during the Eisenhower era or even the Nixon era, you'll find they reflect ideas considered Left-wing today. I'm not sure why this has happened. There are many reasons. If Conservatives really want to return the old-time religion, they would be advised to study the policy and statements of their old heroes rather than the rantings of the current Right-wing personalities.

Liberals have shown consistency and some continuity to the past. (Other than a little drift to the Right.) That is startling and proof that the dividing line is always moving.

It all started around 1913 or there abouts.

Yep Started under Reagan He Bush l and Bush ll caused over 70% of out total debt. carter and Clinton added zero to it.

Lets elect Republicans then do what they said back in the days of the cold war. get under your desk put your heads between your legs and kiss your a--- goodbye.

Conservatism caused the Great Depression, made us paranoid in the Fifties, courtesy of the Red Scare, put us in debt in the Eighties, thanks to SDI and stripped us of our freedom after Bush's henchmen drafted the "Patriot" Act.

It wants to finish us off denying people the right to have health care.

Yep Started under Reagan He Bush l and Bush ll caused over 70% of out total debt. carter and Clinton added zero to it.

I think you can trace it to Nixon. Nixon had the powerful idea to break the "Solid South" in Republican's favor. The South hated Republicans because of the Civil War and Reconstruction. As Democrats began to move toward civil rights, Republicans moved in to fill the void. The old Civil War era voters had all died off by then and the new generation embraced the new Republican party.

Nice.

That's a pretty rosy future you paint LeftInTexas. I hope you are right. Well written presentation!

Right now it just looks like a morass of people trying to cling to exaggeratedideas or failed philosophy to the bitter end. If some of these Bachmann-like loons continue to be reelected, the situation will continue to deteriorate.

There is a price to be paid for not admitting you are wrong. Defending these failed ideas and doubling down on them slows the progress that most people say they believe in.

The pendulum has been Right for a long time Mike. Conservative are desperately trying to swing it further Right and moving to the extreme side in doing so. The American appetite for such antics does have a limit. (If you can say there is a limit to any American's appetite :-)

I agree with what the author has to say. I do not agree with the "Conservatism is dead statement".

I never thought I'd see the day when Barry Goldwater would have been considered a Moderate. I think we are getting there. I'm hoping the day will come when sanity returns to the Conservatives.

The Liberals actually adopted many Conservative ideas since the Reagan years. Unions do not have nearly the sway they used to have. Both parties signed on to bank degregulation. Clinton reformed welfare. Conservatives achieved many of their goals. How much more do they want?

I think the biggest contradiction to this "conservatism is dead" position is the back lash that is presently taking place. Tea parties etc. and the furor coming from the left. Conservatism will never be dead it's popularity will ebb and flow just as liberalism has. It's what ideas are at the of the pendulums swing are they as strongly conservative or liberal as they were, weaker or more extreme?

I'd rather support a crook who's working for my interests instead of a crook who believes that General Electric is a person.

Crooks never work for your interests. You just get conned into voting for a crook.

"As far as educating the lower classes, should they not be doing that themselves?"

You can't get a bachelor's degree from home, no matter how hard you study. And any applications to places that require a degree: I.E. all living wage jobs, would immediately fail.

That's true, but Republicans seem to think they have the exclusive right to define Conservatism (and Liberalism for that fact).

I guess, I consider myself off in the realm of conservative somewhere, but a republican I am not.

So where would I be in that spectrum if I first measured the distance and then said we need a ladder that will reach ten ft., not more not less, and don't care what your religious preferences are?

Someone should tell them that Jesus was a communist.

"Someone should tell them that Jesus was a communist."

...or at least, a solid socialist.

Seastar:

I agree with one exception. No intellectual base other than Ron Paul. Romney looks presidential and is vague on specific positions. Palin voters are Tea Party members and vice versa. Mike Huckabee realistically will not run again. Gingrich has his extra marital affair hanging over him and is probably trying to hook up with Fox News for a higher paying job. Rush, the right wing's Jabba the Hut, would not run because he is on a multi year $35 million contract and is worth $650 million to $1 billion. Rush is anti intellectual.

Most Americans will never vote for a Mormon. Ron Paul is too old. Not only does Gingrich have affairs hanging over him, but the government shutdowns, as well.

In order to have any shot in winning in '12, the Republicans need to come up with a moderate whom no one has heard of because they will only alienate the country by moving further to the right-if that were at all possible!

"Rush is anti intellectual"

Rush is also a dyed-in-the-wool addict. Not just a "I didn't inhale" experimenter, but an addict. An addict is always an addict, and he is self-confessed as being one. As far as I have heard (and I'm sure we would, if so), he doesn't regularly attend NA or any other therapy, so his chances of relapse are quite high (no pun intended). That doesn't sit well with the majority.

soggy9000

Great perspective, post, and points.

Good Show!

Ron Paul has one of the strongest conservative voting records and one of the few Republicans I am willing to listen to due to his atypical but conservative Libertarian views. He is currently polled at second place in Republican voting at 23 percent to Romney's 24 percent. His stand on a non interventionist foreign policy (NOT isolationism) is the exact opposite of the neo conservatives belief that we need to intervene all over the planet for the sake of the American Empire and its military industrial complex billionaire corporations. I enthusiastically support Ron Paul's position.

I agree. I might not not be able to agree with everything Ron Paul says, but I do think he could save conservatism and make it more respectable.

As a liberal, I find Ron Paul to sound sane. I can't say that about too many on the right Their knee jerk tendency to do every single thing Bush wanted mad them look like the Stepford Wives. They can mock the Democrats inability to agree on everything, but we could have used some questioning when they were in power.

Obama must be trying to get in on the online jewelry sales since he found out about McCain Fine-gold.

"What I see is a great understanding of marketing."

Anvil: I think you are blaming the current administration for fighting fire with fire, rather than for genuine failings. Marketing (aka, "public relations", or propaganda, by it's real name) is the favorite of the right-wing, not the left. What do you think Karl Rove and Roger Ailes actually did for the Bushes, Nixon, and Reagan (among other republican politicians)? Then we have Gingrich's "Language: a key mechanism of control" memo (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1276). If you can give examples and non-partisan proofs of the same regarding the Dems, I will gladly read them.

And btw: "human nature" and "the way of the world" IS a tool of marketing. In fact, it is the very basis of marketing. Do some reading on Edward Bernays.

"Many...describe the United States as a democracy...why is it now commonly thought to be what we are?"

Because James Madison, in Federalist Papers #10, defined our method of government as a "representative democracy", rather than a true "republic", which is merely a governing system that is not ruled by a monarch.

BTW: a "republic" only allows input from some of the people, not ALL of the people; "Republics" do not all consider "All men " to be "created equal". Is this how you view our form of government? This too is incorrect, and a much too prevalent mind-set lately, as is the belief that liberals are all socialists and communists, as you infer in your post. "(ie the soviet union, cuba etc.)"

Many writings have been penned since Cicero's time (are you sure you don't mean Aristotle?) that define "republic" and are more accurately descriptive with our governing methods; John Locke's Two Treatise of Government, for example. However, our government is quite unique, and without reading and having a firm grasp on such documents as the Federalist Papers and the extended letters and writings of the Founders, it is not possible to fully understand. As a result, I can't think of anyone, outside of a Constitutional Scholar, that is truly qualified to interpret the meaning of our Founder's thoughts, and lead our country. Conservatism, by it's very definition, can only see things in black and white. It takes an open, (liberal that is, also by definition) mind to be capable of assessing the innuendo and subtlety of our governing procedures.

Good try, though.

Marketing (aka, "public relations", or propaganda, by it's real name) is the favorite of the right-wing, not the left.

Are you reading any papers right now? You know who our president is? You elected a guy with no credentials just because he promised hope and change, but never really defined what it was. What did President Obama ever PRODUCE? What did he ever do? Nothing.

Republics are ruled by law, not by mob rule. At least, that's the way it's supposed to be.

I researched both candidates before voting. Obama was a young senator, but he graduated top of his class at harvard law school, and I believe he was the first black chief editor of their political publication, can't remember the name. Yes, his slogans were vague, but he also had actual campaign pledges. Nuclear non-proliferation, like he's been doing since elected, and health care reform, which republicans fought down to just a small drop of what he wanted it to be. Many people claim he said he'd get us out of the war but that's innaccurate, he said he'd only change the front of the war, which he did to Afghanistan. He hasn't been perfect, but he's no failure. Personally I wanted Kucinich to win. Only politician against the war since it took place.

Thanks blazera for speaking the truth about Obama. I agree with all you said.

"You elected a guy with no credentials..."

danbo: You seem to put a lot of faith in "credentials", as you disparage Obama for not having done anything. However, Obama was a self-made man, and a Senator, and more importantly, as I said in my earlier post, he knows the foundations of our country and our government from his years of exemplary education in the same. He is a thinker, and thinkers make better decisions than easily manipulated, glory besotted people like John McCain, and demagogues such as his running mate, Sarah Palin, neither of which had overwhelming "credentials" themselves.

Sure, John McCain was a war hero (of which some would disagree just how much a "hero" he was), and a Senator for almost 20 years (not free of scandal: illegal contributions, extra-marital affairs, etc.), but most of all, he was the son and grandson of Admirals and a rich woman's husband, with rich friends. He seemed to have been favored by his parentage and by other people's money, to be where he was. I found this to be in conflict with his "maverickyness", which, as a result, made him appear more like a 'tantrum-y' spoiled kid to me.

His running mate...well, just where do you start on that one, except to not have her run at all? Everything that could possibly be said has already been, and none of it has proven to be very positive for her "credentials", or her accomplishments, or her as a person, or her own party in general. I'm sure she'll continue along the same lines until in her narcissistic stupor, she does something really idiotic, or illegal, which will finish her "political" career, as it were. Bottom line here: neither of these candidates showed any sort of "credentials" that qualified them to hold the highest two offices in the land. Better to vote for a "maybe" than a "definitely not".

Obama has not terribly disappointed me yet. No, I have not agreed 100% with everything he has done, but he seems to be doing what's right for the American people, and as blazera said, he's certainly no failure, as his plans seem to be gaining momentum.

(And fyi: neither are "republics" ruled by polemics, but there seems to be a lot of that coming from the right.)

blazera-

I would like to see your proof of him being first in his class, since you obviously didn't research him too much or you would have known he didn't release any of his school records. In fact, his first executive order when he went into office was to seal all that information.

alise42-

President Obama was a Senator for how long? How long was McCain a senator? You say because of his degree in law that he understands everything about our gov't? Well, then he's even with almost every other member of congress since they're about 90% lawyers.

I've never seen so many people so happy that they are going to be paying so much more in taxes and energy bills before in my life. Obviously you don't follow politics that much or you'd know that nothing that our dear President has done has help our economy.

But that's fine. Just keep letting your leadership telling you everything is fine and don't even look into it. And you guys call ME the uninformed, ignorant, brainwashed one.

Liberals told me from 2001 to 2008 not to trust the gov't. Why should that change just because someone else is in power?

PS. I didn't vote for McCain. And President Obama is not a self made man. He's ridden on the coat-tails of every socialist he's ever met, until he was elected president.

I wonder then, why information about his education is so readily available?

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2007/1/19/obama-left-mark-on-hls-days/

"The presidential hopeful graduated magna cum laude from the Law School in 1991; his wife earned the degree three years earlier."

blazera-

magna cum laude does not mean "top of the class", it means "with great honor", which means he got good grades, not that he was the top of his class.

powerisknowledge-

Well, his dad, mom, and grandmother, but you can't hold that against him really. What about when he was mentored by Frank Marshall Davis. Oh wait. He's a communist, not a socialist. Well, President Obama in his own books talked about attending socialist conferences and what about Bill Ayers? What about all the people he's appointed to his czar positions?

a small concession after your ludicrous comment of his education records being sealed. He still had high grades and was the first black chief editor of the Harvard Law Review.

As for your other comments, I would like to know how the people you mentioned are socialists, and the connection Obama had with William Ayers.