1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

The Myth of Republican Conservatism

Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by JGrubbs, Aug 17, 2004.

  1. JGrubbs

    JGrubbs New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    4,761
    Ratings:
    +0
    The latest "Conservative Index" that has just been published by The New American, (a biweekly publication of The John Birch Society), is an eye-opener for those who think that the Republicans in Congress are "conservative." The index once again refutes the myth, based on the voting records of Republicans in Congress, that the Republican Party is the party of "conservatism."

    The "Conservative Index," according to The New American, "rates congressmen based on their adherence to constitutional principles of limited government, to fiscal responsibility, to national sovereignty, and to 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."

    <snip>

    As should be obvious, the Republican Party is not the hope of America. Nothing has changed since George Wallace said that there was not a "dime’s worth of difference" between the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates. It is pro-lifers, grass-roots conservatives, the Christian Right, and the disciples of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity who are wasting their votes by voting Republican – not conservative and libertarian critics of the Republican Party who vote for a third party or not at all.

    Source: http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance15.html
     
  2. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    10,988
    Ratings:
    +207
    Well, if one were silly enough to vote Libertarian, one would be voting for a platform that wants Roe v. Wade upheld and a platform that says that government should not regulate marriage (meaning that same-sex marriage and polygamous marriage should be allowed).

    The Constitution Party wants to end foreign aid and calls, along with the Communist Party, the war in Iraq illegal. They also want to return to a pre-civil war system of counting votes.

    The third parties such as the Libertarian are so far out of the mainstream with candidates like Badnarik that they are only fringe elements. It amuses me personally that the Constitution Party can sit down to eat and fellowship with the Libertarians and their pro-abortion, pro-same-sex marriage candidates and writers.
     
  3. JGrubbs

    JGrubbs New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    4,761
    Ratings:
    +0
    And what is your opinion about the "Conservative Index" published by The New American, or did you even read the article before you posted your rants?
     
  4. Alcott

    Alcott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Messages:
    7,638
    Ratings:
    +327
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The way I learned politics, we don't have a 3RD PARTY in this (national) election. The Libertarian, Consitution, Green, et al, parties are minor parties. They do not present an effective challenge to the major parties, and in most states or locales their vote accumulation is expected to be less than the margin of victory of the winning major party. But a 3rd party does present a challenge/obstacle to one or both of the major parties and can change the election outcome and virtually force one (or both) major parties to accept much of their platform in order to force resolution in the upcoming or future elections. The Populists of 1896 and the American Independent Party of 1968 are 2 examples of 3rd parties, while every election has minor parties, most of which are small and ignored.

    There are also faction parties which can be even more influential than 3rd parties. These are dissatisfied wings of a major party who split and nominate their own candidate(s), as the Progressive Republicans ("Bullmoose"} of 1912 and the States' Rights Democrats ("Dixiecrats") of 1948. T. Roosevelt's "Bullmoose" run in 1912 did force changes in the Republican party for more action in regards to trusts and interior development because it took enough votes away to put a Democrat in office. But the Dixiecrats only showed that the Democratic Party can win a national election without carrying the Solid South, which made the Democrats more liberal nationally.

    What we see these days in the Republican Party is their trying to take enough of the important issues to staunch conservatives to keep that wing of the party from splitting, while the Democrats have decided they can do without the pro-capitalist anti-abortion vote.
     
  5. Salty

    Salty 20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,714
    Ratings:
    +660
    Faith:
    Baptist
    In New York, the Conservative Party does (can) make a difference. NY laws allows a candidate to count votes from all lines he may be on, (eg Republician, Conservative, Right-to-life, Constitution.) Thats right some cadidates have been on as many as five different lines. (The Liberal Party and Working Families normally endorese the Democrats) In New York no Republican has won state wide office without the endorsement of the Conservative Party! Unfournately lately the Conservatives have endorsed the Republician so a Democrat will not win. NOT THIS YEAR! The NY Conservatives have endorsed a seperate candidate for US Senate. Check out the web site for: Dr O'Grady. Maybe the Conservative Party is a "minor party" but in NY we will have a "major" influence!
     
  6. Alcott

    Alcott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Messages:
    7,638
    Ratings:
    +327
    Faith:
    Baptist
    "NY laws allows a candidate to count votes from all lines he may be on, (eg Republician, Conservative, Right-to-life, Constitution.)"

    That appears that the groups you mention are just special interest splitoffs. Or do you mean something other than each of these 'parties' have Bush as their candidate?
     
  7. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    10,988
    Ratings:
    +207
    What is really strange is the Constitution Party climbing into bed with the pro-abortion, pro-same-sex marriage Libertarian Party and allowing the Libertarian Party to pass itself off as conservative. The Constitution Party would sell their souls for a couple of votes and a smile. What does pro-live have to do with pro-abortion? What does Christian have to do with same-sex marriage?

    Hey, Constitution Party, get out of bed with the Libertarians! You are making people sick.
     
  8. Kiffin

    Kiffin New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2001
    Messages:
    2,191
    Ratings:
    +0
    In contrast to the GOP supporting Clinton style Republicans like Governor Arnold and Pro Abortion politicians like Spector, Guilliana, Pataki, Whitman, Hutchingston?

    The GOP needs to return to being a party of ideology rather than the Big Tent party. As long as Conservative Republicans support the GOP line nothing will change.
     
  9. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    10,988
    Ratings:
    +207
    The GOP is a big-tent party willy nilly. Why in Illinois they are even running a Maryland bombastic carpetbagger for Senate.

    As for the Libertarians, they nominated Badnarik. The Constitution Party should get out of bed with the Badnarik crowd if they want to be seen as little more than political opportunists from the far right. They are the ones claiming to be pure while sleeping in the Libertarian bed. Pure what?
     
  10. JGrubbs

    JGrubbs New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    4,761
    Ratings:
    +0
    You are the only one I have heard that thinks the Constitution Party is "in bed" with the Libertarian Party. I will let you know when the Peroutka/Badnarik debates are, so you can see how wrong you are.
     
  11. TomVols

    TomVols New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Ratings:
    +0
    Maybe they're the Libertution party? or Constiterian party? [​IMG]
     
  12. Salty

    Salty 20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,714
    Ratings:
    +660
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The aforementioned parties are actual political parties. The Constitution party does have its own candidate. I dont know if the Right to Life party has a candidate for this year. (The RTL is a single issue party.) I am not sure who the Conservatie Party has endorsed.
    Other than the RTL, the other parties have their own platform. It may be similar to the Republicans, but there defentily are many differences.
     
  13. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    10,988
    Ratings:
    +207
    Everyone thinks that the Constitution Party is in bed with the Libertarian Party. The Constitution Party has squandered the summer quoting Libertarian Party sources about "wrongs" of the GOP from Libertarian Party sources. The Constitution Party has quoted Lew Rockwell several times in the last month. Never mind that the Libertarians advocate abortion on demand and allowing same-sex marriages--they are the bedmates of the Constitution Party. We are told that the Libertarians are close to the Constitution Party--I guess in that both parties love money and are modernists.
     
  14. JGrubbs

    JGrubbs New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    4,761
    Ratings:
    +0
  15. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    10,988
    Ratings:
    +207
     
  16. KenH

    KenH Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Ratings:
    +0
    A sizable portion of libertarians and Libertarians are pro-life and against the government sanctioning homosexual "marriages".

    But I know you broadbrush everyone and every organization, cmg. :rolleyes:
     
  17. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    10,988
    Ratings:
    +207
    Nice try, Ken. I am reading what their platform says and what Badnarik himself says. Badnarik evidently speaks for the majority of Libertarians since they nominated him as their candidate for President. By the way, his mother is running for Lt. Gov. in the state of Indiana.

    I don't see how Peroutka can stand to be in bed with Badnarik--is it love?

    I would urge pro-life and anti-same-sex-marriage Libertarians to join the GOP. Badnarik is bad news.
     
  18. KenH

    KenH Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Ratings:
    +0
    I said a sizable portion of libertarians and Libertarians were pro-life and against the government sanctioning homosexual "marriage". I did not say a majority were.

    Sometimes I am concerned about your reading comprehension skills, cmg.
     
  19. JGrubbs

    JGrubbs New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    4,761
    Ratings:
    +0
    I don't think Peroutka and Badnarik have ever been together, I have talked to many Christian Libertarians who think Badnarik is bad news and so they are supporting Peroutka this year.

    The only place I have heard the theory about the Consitution Party and the Libertarian Party being in bed together is here, from you.
     
  20. TomVols

    TomVols New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Ratings:
    +0
    I'd be curious as to how you arrived at this conclusion Ken. If there are numbers that show it, I'd like to see them. The Liberterians I know are fairly consistently pro-abortion and have no problem with govt sacntioning of gay marriage.
     
Loading...