Is the Republican Party Conservative for the most part?

I don't for a minute believe the GOP to be conservative, though there may be conservative components in them.

 

If you look at the results and policies of the last several years, with the GOP in power in both Congress and the White House, it is apparent that the GOP is more liberal than the Democrat party.

 

Jim, it doesn't negate the fact that many of the registered voters and many within the administration are still conservative in value. As far as who is more liberal....well, I would say that is a toss up.

 

I was thinking of the policies implemented. They have pushed socialized medicine, federal control of education, and deficit spending to levels the Democrats never came close to. Their rate of destruction on social issues is a bit slower than the things I mentioned above, but they are still moving us leftward there, too.

Conservatives are kept on board fot their votes, but scorned if they dare open their mouths. Wonder how long they'll continue to be used so cynically.

What does "conservative in value" mean...believing one thing but doing the opposite?

 

Bill Clinton pushed for most of the policies that were implemented, and his "surplus" was smoke and mirrors, counting money from SS and other programs as part of the overage.

Please prove that conservatives are kept on the boards and scorned if they open their mouths in disapproval. Sources?

Conservative in value means working within the present system for change instead of throwing your vote to a fanny burp in the wind like Peroutka.

 

The problem, LadyEagle, is convincing ANYONE that Peroutka is a VIABLE CANDIDATE, or even a potential threat, which he isn't, nor will he ever be. He has no name recognition, he has no backing to speak of, and he hasn't really got a leg to stand on unless he moves his way up through the ranks.

 

Correct. Clinton pushed for them, but Bush was able to implement them, because he is a Republican with a Republican congress. A good reason why Kerry would probably be less destructive. You are correct that the Clinton surplus was smoke and mirrors. Bush has simply made it many times worse.

I said "on board", meaning that they are welcome to continue to give their votes and help, but aren't allowed to set policy, which has become strictly liberal.

What have these folks changed to conservative in the last four years? And why do you demean a Christian man who holds to, and desires to implement, all of the things that you claim you care about?

 

I don't know that they have changed much if anything. I do know at least they are trying, Jim. There are more working from within than there are supporters for Peroutka, Nader and Badnarik combined...I guarantee you.

 

If something isn't working, it might be wise to try something better.

 

I can't say that the CP would be better, especially since it's just a rehash of the Taxpayers party.

 

It's not a "re-hash", it's a continuation with a new name. The thing that I think is very positive is that the CP holds to very constitutional and biblical positions, and their candidates stick to the platform, and are required to make a written public statement of any points of disagreement.

Isn't that what we want?

 

I still would call it a "re-hash". My father belonged to that party for a while, until he saw what a losing battle it was. As stated before I have seen little I like about the party (especially from the reps here in TN and in GA) and I certainly think they could find a better choice of leadership than Peroutka.

People don't always get what they want, Jim. Fact.

 

Sounds like your father had some un-met expectations of the "U.S. Taxpayers Party", so he left the party and went back to the GOP. What were your reasons for joining the party before he, as you say, "saw what a losing battle it was"?

What specific problem do you have with the leadership of Peroutka? Are you one of those who believe that you have to be a career politician in order to be a good leader in Washington?

 

JGrubbs, I never said my father went to the GOP, so you made that assumption on your own.

I never stated anything about the necessity of having a "career politician" anywhere. You've made a lot of assumptions.

 

Of course. But that's no reason to support a party that is pushing what you don't want.

 

Let me apologize for my false assumptions. Will you answer my questions?

 

I think it depends on one's definition of "conservative" and "liberal." Neo-conservatives would, for instance, think themselves conservative but I would disagree with them - they are neither new nor conservative. If you are a neo-conservative then the republican party will certainly appear to be conservative to you but it hasn't been for a long time and perhaps never really was ever as far as I'm concerned.

Another thing too is how words/labels are used. Liberal has become a dirty word so nobody wants to be called a liberal. It is now a tool used by people who don't really know the difference between to two to denounce anyone who disagrees with them - even those who would question their own liberal slant. If you disagree with somebody, all you have to do is call them a liberal and the argument is over - that's the modern "conservative" idea of conversation in my experience. Do not question runaway spending or social programs brought to us by republicans or you'll be a "liberal." The labels no longer have meaning to most republicans in my view. To most republicans they have become interchangable - conservative=republican and liberal=everybodyElse. I'd rather not even use the words because they have no meaning anymore.