Tagged: social conservatives Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • just a conservative girl 1:05 PM on 03/21/2013 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: gop civil war, libertarians, , social conservatives   

    Social Conservatives Vs. Libertarians The Ongoing battle 

    I have been formulating a post about this in my head for a few days now, but have yet to get it in writing.   I came across this today via a facebook friend and fellow activist from Northern Virginia.  This is a good starting point.

    Via The American Conservative.

    At the Conservative Political Action Conference last weekend, the nation’s largest annual gathering of conservatives, many speculated that the GOP might be veering in a more libertarian direction—or at least influential leaders within the party might be prodding it or might be anxious for it to go in that direction. The Daily Beast ran the headline “Libertarians run the show at CPAC.” In his CPAC speech, former presidential candidate Rick Santorum warned that conservatives should not surrender their principles, referring specifically to social issues.

    Some on both the left and right perceive libertarianism as inherently hostile to social conservatism. Some libertarians even think this. This is not only a misperception, but flat out wrong—libertarianism offers social conservatives a better hope for success in our current political environment than the nationalist approach often favored by some social conservative leaders.

    Part of the beauty of libertarianism is that you can be socially liberal or socially conservative and subscribe to the label. For the millions of social conservatives who constitute a significant base of the Republicans Party, embracing libertarianism is not an all-or-nothing question of accepting or rejecting deep convictions about life, traditional marriage, or drug regulation. It simply means rethinking the approach to these issues.

    The distance between mere rhetoric and tangible success for social conservatives essentially comes down to this question: Does the federal government always have to become involved? Or should certain decisions be made at the state and local level, as the framers of the Constitution intended?

    The protection of innocent life is the number one concern of millions of Americans in both parties. Most pro-lifers believe that Roe v. Wade was constitutionally unsound, and indeed, some pro-choice advocates even admit that the legal reasoning was flawed. Given the gravity of what its stake, it is understandable that many would demand federal protection of the unborn.

    It is also true that the political prospects of this happening anytime soon are nil. But if murder and manslaughter laws are decided at the state and local level, why shouldn’t that approach work for those who believe abortion is the taking of an innocent human life? The more libertarian position is the constitutional one—that any powers not delegated to the federal government as outlined in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution are delegated to the states.

    It might not be possible to get rid of abortion throughout the nation, but it might be possible to save unborn children in Alabama or South Carolina. National polls have shown that more Americans than ever are now calling themselves pro-life. Fighting at the local and state level to keep pushing attitudes in this direction is certainly a worthwhile effort.

    On traditional marriage, public opinion is quickly moving in the direction of allowing same-sex marriage, something still anathema to many people of faith. Libertarians generally take two positions on this issue: One, that states should decide what constitutes a marriage; Two, that government has no business regulating marriage and it should be defined by religious or civic institutions.

    Polls show that the entire country, and particularly youth, is becoming more tolerant of the idea of same-sex marriage. In this political climate, allowing more conservative states to define the institution—or better yet, allowing your church to define it—should be more attractive to social conservatives than some of current alternatives.

    Concerning the federal war on drugs, it’s hard to measure the damage done to many families whose kids were put in jail for an extended time due to mandatory-minimum drug sentencing. There are countless Americans, and especially young people, who’ve made a single mistake with drugs, get caught, and are then incarcerated longer than rapists and murderers—alongside rapists and murderers.

    States should regulate softer drugs like marijuana just like they do alcohol. This might be the tricky issue for some social conservatives, but it is the constitutional position. If we concede that the current federal war against the unborn is wrong, and that President Obama and Congress have no constitutional authority to define marriage, the same is true of federal drug regulation. A war against drug abuse—just like alcohol abuse—should be done at the state and local level, or better yet, the church and community level.

    It’s always important to emphasize that this question is not about legalization versus keeping drugs illegal. It is about deciding which level of government should regulate drugs—federal, state, or local. Federal prohibition didn’t work a century ago, and it has failed miserably in our own time.

    The drug question also isn’t about surrendering to liberalism or hedonism, but a much-needed, common-sense re-examination of what’s conservative. Conservative icons William F. Buckley and Milton Friedman long advocated the libertarian position concerning the federal war on drugs. So has televangelist Pat Robertson, who has called for marijuana legalization. These men are not exactly “lefties” in any respect.

    On traditional values as a whole, some of the most prominent names associated with libertarianism, past and present, are social conservatives—Ludwig von Mises, F.A. Hayek, Rep. Justin Amash, Rep. Thomas Massie, Fox News’s Judge Andrew Napolitano, Lew Rockwell, Tom Woods, Robert Murphy, Jeffrey Tucker, and last but certainly not least—Ron and Rand Paul (both of whom have I’ve worked for).

    Indeed, libertarianism’s current mainstream success is largely due to the fact that socially conservative, Christian men have been successful in promoting it.

    Again, one can also embrace social liberalism and claim the libertarian mantle, though it is telling that the economic collectivism that remains at the heart of American liberalism continues to render left-libertarianism a much smaller and less significant philosophical force than its right counterpart.

    Social conservatives have no reason to fear libertarianism and have much reason to embrace it. In the end, libertarianism simply tells us what the state cannot do; our values tell us what we ought to do, and liberty gives us the freedom to do it.


    • Teresa Rice 5:06 PM on 03/21/2013 Permalink | Reply

      I agree with most of what the article has to say. Although I would say that advancing the anti-abortion agenda in the states would be a starting point and overturning Roe v. Wade would be the end goal.

      • just a conservative girl 7:21 PM on 03/21/2013 Permalink | Reply

        Overturning Roe would only leave it to the states. Which is why I don’t pay much attention to what someone on the federal level has to say about abortion. The vast majority of restrictions are done on the state level.

    • fuzislippers 11:42 AM on 03/23/2013 Permalink | Reply

      [quote]Some on both the left and right perceive libertarianism as inherently hostile to social conservatism.[/quote]

      Because it is. By its very nature (i.e. inherently so), libertarianism is completely hostile to conservatism. Libertarians want every human behavior–no matter how base, cruel, or evil–to be “legal.” It’s up to the individual to decide, they proclaim (or lately, they’ve adopted 10th Amendment arguments designed to appeal to conservatives, so the individual is replaced with “the states.” That’s not what they actually believe, though; it’s just semantics.).

      When conservatives say “limited government,” we mean limited by the Constitution; libertarians take it to mean, essentially, no limits on citizens at all. Libertarianism is a close kin of anarchy; too close for my comfort as a conservative. We need laws, we need government, but not the unbounded tyranny we’re seeing coming from Washington.

      [quote]States should regulate softer drugs like marijuana just like they do alcohol. This might be the tricky issue for some social conservatives, but it is the constitutional position.[/quote]

      The entire drugs argument is ridiculously and on-its-face out-of-sync with conservatism. Conservatives do believe that some laws are needed, that abortion, drugs, and prostitution should not be legal. No spin can change that, nor should it.

      That all said, I do have some libertarian leanings, but these are mostly related to the Fed and to things like droning Americans (here AND abroad, unless they are actively engaged in an immediate plot–i.e. I would have had zero problem with President Bush ordering that Flight 93 be shot down by our own guys/girls). But my objections are to the amassing of power in the executive branch, making our president a (to use a Rand Paul term) “defacto” dictator. Libertarians, because of their reasoning, are in a whole different intellectual space.

      For example, libertarians believe, ala crazy Ron Paul, that Islamofascism is the result of American policies, that we shouldn’t care if Iran gets nuclear weapon capability, etc. But here’s the flaw in that thinking: Islamofascism has existed for as long as Islam has. Islam and its text, the Koran, teach that the world will one day be dominated by Islam, that a global caliphate is not only desirable but actually mandated by their “holy” text. To that end, they perpetrated truly horrendous crimes against humanity in the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries. Torturing, beheading, and taking so much land, so many sovereign countries, in Europe that the Christian Crusades began in response. Muslims were, essentially, taking over the entire European continent, building mosques on the sites of razed churches and synagogues (a thing they still do, as they tried to do with their “victory mosque” in NYC). The Crusades, long-damned, were actually a response to this barbaric threat (granted, a heavy-handed response, but a response nonetheless).

      Fast-forward to the mid- to late- 1700’s: American vessels were being seized, their sailors tortured and killed in the name of Islam. The United States Marine Corps (pronounced Core, to Obama’s shock) was founded for the sole purpose of responding to the Islamofascist threat on the high seas.

      Libertarians, like leftists, like to pretend–may even believe–that Islamic terrorists are the result of American policies, but that doesn’t explain why Islamists have historically destroyed any and all non-Muslim (or not the “right” Muslim) forces they’ve encountered. We hear constantly of Islamist terrorist threats against Malaysia, Scotland, and tens of other nations. Libertarians can’t tell you why or how America is responsible for these attacks; instead, they just stick out their pouty lower lip and insist it’s all about America. Ask one sometime why Islamist terror plots were foiled in China. China, of all places. China is a closed, communist (and until recently atheist) country that has few beyond trade ties to America. So why are terrorists active there if big, bad, hateful, awful America is to blame?

      Sorry, I may agree with and even #StandWithRand but that stops the second the focus shifts from drones to . . . almost anything else. Libertarians are not conservatives. Period.

      • just a conservative girl 10:10 AM on 03/25/2013 Permalink | Reply

        Some of the most socially conservative people i know are libertarians. I also strongly disagree that most libertarirans don’t want “any” government. They want the laws placed where they belong. Such as the Voilence against Women’s act. While it is a good thing to have laws to help woman who are being abused, it isn’t the role of the federal government to do so.

        Not all libertarians are on the fringe.

        • fuzislippers 10:49 AM on 03/25/2013 Permalink | Reply

          But being against the Violence Against Women’s Act (and all of the “hate crime” legislation) is not solely a libertarian stance. Conservatives, like myself, have long held that such laws are not needed because we already have laws against assault, rape, violent attacks, etc. Beating someone, anyone of either gender and of any race, is already illegal. There does not to need to be a further law for every individual group. But again, this is a conservative stance, not necessarily or only libertarian. I am referring to the libertarian views that are actually regressive (“progressive”), not those that mesh with conservatives. That’s the trouble with discussing libertarian vs. conservative (and vs. progressive, actually), there is just too much overlap. They are conservative here, sometimes ultra-conservative, and progressive there, sometimes ultra-progressive. It’s not a good fit for me.

          • just a conservative girl 5:53 PM on 03/25/2013 Permalink | Reply

            I agree. I am begining to feel that I don’t really fit into any of the catergories. I am sick to death of all the judgement that goes on from all sides.

            We are a diverse nation with more than 300 million people. People are going to disagree on most issues. Doing so doesn’t make you less of something or more something else.

            I am looking for the group that accepts that we are going to disagree on smaller issues, but will stay together because we agree on about 80% of the rest. Sadly, many of the social conservatives that are not libertarian leaning have made me feel less than welcome.

            I am getting pretty tired of it.

            • fuzislippers 7:20 PM on 03/25/2013 Permalink | Reply

              I understand perfectly, JACG. I do have some libertarian leanings, but as I said above, they are pretty limited in scope and (to my mind, at least) compliment conservative principles.

              And you are right, there is a lot of judgement and making people feel unwelcome, but it goes both ways. When we dismiss social conservatives, are we not guilty of the same thing?

              • fuzislippers 7:21 PM on 03/25/2013 Permalink | Reply

                Argh, since I can’t edit comments here anymore, “compliment” should be “complement,” of course. Dratted fingers go faster than my brain sometimes,and I click to post a reply before I’ve actually reread it.

              • just a conservative girl 8:29 PM on 03/25/2013 Permalink | Reply

                I guess my question is when have they been dismissed? What i have found is being told that unless you are fully socially conservative you can’t be a conservative.

                I believe that I am pretty socially conservative, but my main focus is on fiscal issues. So when SoCons that are big spenders, such as Santorum and Huckabee, I feel they are the ones that are really walking away from conservative principles by increasing the size and scope of the government in our personal lives.

                Where my libertarian streak comes in is the fact that I don’t see how the government can truly legislate morality. If that were true we wouldn’t have racism anymore, it would have ended with slavery. It still exists today.

                Well no one has said this would be easy. So we keep on moving on.

                • fuzislippers 8:56 PM on 03/25/2013 Permalink | Reply

                  When have social conservatives been dismissed? Um, constantly. Even here, your focus on fiscal issues is dismissive of social conservatives (and I do it, too, but we can’t be dismissive in one breath and then claim to be disgruntled that we feel “less than welcome”). I happen to agree that fiscal issues have or should have primacy right now, but they don’t think you can separate the fiscal from the social or that you should. That should be okay for them to believe.

                  As to the government not legislating morality, no, it cannot do that, at least not in terms of “you will now feel this way or that,” but almost every law we have is rooted in the government legislating morality (this goes for everything from laws against murder and theft to tax laws that “reward” certain behaviors and penalize others). I think these are good laws, good morals to legislate. I just don’t think they need to be legislated to death–one law against violent crime for everyone works just fine, when we start making abuse against some people “worse” than abuse against others, we move beyond simply legislating morality and onto the slippery slope toward tyranny.

                  Arguably, the Civil Rights Act, affirmative action, and other race-related laws are indeed the legislation of morality (at least they are if you think that laws against violence against women or abortion or prostitution or drugs are the legislation of morality). As such, they are very much an attempt to make racism illegal. But racism is something that feel, think, and believe, and you simply can’t “ban” it or legislate it away. That’s one of the main problems with that sort of argument.

  • just a conservative girl 1:55 PM on 11/12/2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , social conservatives, , ,   

    Post Election Rant 

    Obviously I am very disappointed in the results from election night.  So much so, that I really have not had the heart to even write this.  But, Kathleen Parker got me out of that and quickly too.

    The truth is, Romney was better than the GOP deserved. Party nitwits undermined him, and the self-righteous tried to bring him down. The nitwits are well-enough known at this point — those farthest-right social conservatives who couldn’t find it in their hearts to keep their traps shut. No abortion for rape or incest? Sit down.Legitimate rape? Put on your clown suit and go play in the street.

    Equally damaging were the primary leeches who embarrassed the party and wouldn’t leave the stage. Nine-nine-nine, we’re talking about you, Herman Cain. And Gov. Oops? You, too. And then there were Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann, who never had a real shot at the nomination and certainly could never win a national election, yet they refused to surrender to the certain nominee.

    Did they have a right to persist in their own fantasies? Sure. But not if they were serious about getting a Republican in the White House. Thus, for months and months, Romney had to spend his energy and, as important, his money to prevail in the primaries against opponents who had no chance and who ultimately hurt him. During that same precious time, Obama’s campaign was busy pinpointing specific voters, practically learning the names of their dogs, and buying ads in niche markets.

    Wow, so it is my fault.  Not that I am even “furthest right” when it comes to social issues. I have made no bones about it, I didn’t like Mitt Romney as the nominee.  I have been saying for over a year that had he got the nomination he would lose.  I didn’t even think that because of his wishy washiness on social issues.  To me social issues are not really the purview of the federal government, and I don’t care which side is trying to make the case that they are.  You cannot legislate your sense of morality onto someone else, it comes from within.   That said, people still want to see that you have core convictions.

    I also have seen many of the more moderate republicans all across social media blaming the tea party and SoCons.  Really?  I will say it again, I didn’t like Romney as the nominee.  I didn’t want to vote for him.  When push came to shove, I went out and I did it.  Not only did I vote for him, I went out and worked my ass off trying to get him elected.  I spent the final six weeks of the cycle on trains, planes, and automobiles crisscrossing the country from swing state to swing state.  I spent 7 to 8 hours per day knocking on doors, then spend another few hours making phone calls.  I did this in close to freezing temperatures and pouring rain one more than one occasion.  I slept in hotel that I had to keep changing rooms because of bugs.  Don’t tell me that I didn’t take one for the team.

    Every Tea Party minded person I know personally did similar things as well.  Americans for Prosperity, one of the tea party umbrella groups, helped get people like me out to swing states.  Do you think that Romney was their initial choice?  Not likely, but we will never know as they don’t endorse candidates.  But, you still saw them working night and day on the GOTV effort.  Like me, they understood the stakes.

    Now, what did the squishy middle do?  Were they there?  Did the same people who are throwing this blame around at people like me get out from in front of their computers and make the same personal sacrifices that I made?  Many of the ones that I know didn’t.  They sat around posting things through social media to people who already agreed with them.  Boy, that was helpful.

    One thing that was proven without a doubt is that the moderate wing of the party cannot the presidency without the crazies from the far right.  To the people who believe that all life is sacred and is worth fighting for.  I will admit that some go too far for my tastes.  I refuse to engage with people who show horrific pictures of dead babies and ask me if I think it is ok to rip babies out of their mothers wombs.  That is emotional blackmail.  But, if you think that same tactic isn’t used on the left you are sadly mistaken.  They take one person out 45,000 that has some obscure sob story and then tries to pass a law that forces everyone in the country to change their life in order to accommodate their plea of the day.  While of course the opposite is true as well.  But I am sick to death of hearing that I caused the loss of the senate and I am somehow personally responsible for Romney’s loss.

    I was there, I was in a tightly contested county in a swing state on election day.  No kidding, they had me knocking on doors that already had literature on it.  I called and told them that this was happening.  I was told to just keep going.  I walked seven miles on election day, going door to door.  At one point I had to find a woody area so I could go to the bathroom because I knew that one of the drivers wouldn’t be able to get me in time, I was so far out from the victory office.  Luckily I had napkins with me.

    After returning from day of door knocking I was making calls all day.  I was calling Minnesota.  You know what, 3 out 5 calls were wrong numbers due to bad area codes.  How the heck is that my fault?  Didn’t the campaign bother to update the phone lists?  Apparently not.  The campaign is denying the story of software they created for the GOTV effort, but I can tell it was true, at least in Ohio.  It wasn’t working properly.

    Where was the Romney campaign in Wisconsin?  Why didn’t they use the popularity of Paul Ryan as the hometown boy with the all the advantages they had with Governor Walker’s grassroots efforts?  They didn’t put enough resources in that state.  That is my fault how?

    I am sick to death of hearing that my voice shouldn’t matter in the party.  That my views are somehow less important than theirs.  That I should be giving up on my principles to tack left.  Because heaven knows that is what the democrats do when they lose elections.  They moderate.

    I happen to believe that we need immigration reform in this country.  But I am not willing to sell out my principles in order to get it.  The facts are President Reagan signed immigration reform decades ago, did that help bring Hispanics into the party?  No it did not.  Did the democratically controlled congress keep their end of the bargain?  If they had we wouldn’t have millions more in the country.  Read the law that Reagan signed Ms. Parker.  The borders were supposed to be secured.  The law was supposed to go after employers that violated the law by giving any additional positions to illegals, oh excuse me, undocumented workers.  None of that has happened.  So I am supposed to put my trust into the democrats doing the same again?  I guess if I am stupid I should.

    What people like you Ms. Parker are really saying is that my views matter so little that I should be just cast aside.  Lets also take a stroll down memory lane of the past few GOP presidential candidates.  McCain, a moderate.  Dole, a moderate, Bush I who governed as a moderate and destroyed the yacht industry while president.  An industry that all these decades that has never come back, and never will.  Thanks to his “luxury” tax thousands upon thousands lost their jobs, companies went out of business, and America, once the #1 exporter of said yachts is now the #1 importer.  The industry died and it cost the tax payers millions and millions of dollars.  Yes, that is the leadership that the right should be looking for.

    President Bush 2 is the only one of them that was ran as conservative unabashedly.  He was successful not just once, but twice.  Now, he still ended up with big government polices and spent money like a drunken sailor (sorry to all you drunken sailors) that has gotten us to the point where we are now.  Above and beyond all the money and the big government policies that President Bush promoted and acted upon during his presidency, his biggest sin was acting like you are suggesting.   He rolled over and allowed the left to control the narrative.  He didn’t fight back on all the lies.  He felt that the presidency shouldn’t be used in that way.  While in theory I agree with him on that.  I, to have a great deal of respect for the office of the presidency, but times have changed.  We have 24 hour news cycles and cable channels that do nothing but spit out a point of view and will use lies if necessary to promote their agenda.  That must be countered and countered hard.  His refusal to do it, is a big part of the reason we even have a President Obama.  So no, Ms. Parker I reject your advice.  The protection of religious liberties matter.  I will fight for them from shore to shore in this country.  The word marriage has meaning.  If gay marriage was simply about benefits, the problems would have been solved years ago.  If DADT tell was simply about serving in the military we would not have seen people in uniforms marching in Gay Pride parades this year, even though that is clear violation of military code of conduct.  You wouldn’t see gay couples suing conservative churches to perform marriage ceremonies.  They are trying to say that my beliefs are bad, that there is something inherently wrong with them.  I don’t care what a gay couple does in the privacy of their bedrooms, but I do care what they are trying to do to my church.  They want tax write-offs and hospital visitation fine.  But stay out of my place of worship.

    Did it ever occur to you Ms. Parker that Romney was never able to make the connection to voters?  Did it ever occur to you that he never gave a coherent reason of why he should be president other than he wasn’t Obama?  Now that was more than enough for me, but for the low information voter it wasn’t.  Most people don’t like change just for the sake of change.  They will dance with the devil they know.  That is part of human nature.  Did it every occur to you that people in this country don’t want to elect someone who is wealthy as he is?  The left, that you seem all too willing to model after, has done a great job in creating a society that wealth is a bad thing, that people with money are ogres, evil, and someone who isn’t compassionate.

    People in this country want conviction Ms. Parker.  Romney didn’t show that he really had that.  People want real conviction because it is a sign of leadership.  Stop blaming me and put the blame where it belongs, on the left who have convinced people that anyone that dares calls themselves a republican, or gasp even worse a conservative, lacks compassion and is racist.   Look in the mirror Ms. Parker, because you yourself have bought into that argument.


    • joyannaadams 2:33 PM on 11/12/2012 Permalink | Reply

      Great rant…and sorry you went through all that. The only place I might disagree with you is saying that all those that ran with Romney were not ready to be President. Compared to what is in the White House, any of them would have been an improvement.

      The Bushes, and as they call them, the Rockefeller Rhino’s CONTROL the republican party. They are globalists. (Mitt was one of them and Karl Rove helped PUT him in the nomination with his positions oon FOX.) America comes second to the global causes…and the global causes will continue.

      Look how certain you were that Mitt was the only man who could compete. Do you know that for sure?

      I am convinced, that Obamacare was wanted by the Rhino’s too, BECAUSE the big corporations were whining about having to compete with China and all the other countries…they want the state to take over all health care.

      Do you see a pattern here? McCain..they ran him to lose…but attached a tea party person with him to get support and make us THINK that the Rhinos’ were going to be conservative. The VERY same thing was done with Mitt.

      The Rhinos wanted Obama in for another four years….Tell me, why put Paul Ryan in, and then he literally disappeard. Did you noticed that Mitt didn’t look the least bit upset? Nieither did John McCain.

      What’s wrong with that picture? And Boener says the “tea party” is gone?


      Running Ryan and Palin with them was only to make you think that they believe in the “tea party” causes. And look what they did to Ron Paul. You didn’t hear about it, but his people were threatened and even denied notice at all the primary voting.

      It’s globaization that is the plan. There is a reason that everything comes down to “one” vote.

      Many American, like me, don’t buy the BS anymore. Being a ‘teaparty” suppporter of our Constitution, which have you noticed is just a piece of paper now, I am now regarded as obsolete. Notice the very next day, all the pundits on FOX were going toward amnesty, and women’s rights…

      Where was the outrage? On the blogs. Which have NO power whatsoever. Presidents can start wars, send billions to other countries, while their own people suffer…

      They WANT you to complain….because they know you have no power whatsoever. It’s necessary to release all that anger.

      It’s all about the money…and keeping certain dynasties in power.

      Will I ever vote again?

      Not unless the middle of the country secedes and we start over.And I don’t think I’m the only one who feels like that.

      The Chances of Obama letting that happen?

      None. Remember Janet Reno.

      Great women like you should now be putting all that effort into forming another start….and that start is not going to come by working for either party in power.

      America as we knew it, is gone.
      We can keep it in our hearts, and give in to the upcoming tyranny..
      Or we can get together and decide a new course. And that course will NOT be hoping to elect “conservative” Congressmen. They have it rigged that the party leaders always make the decisions.

      Newt did it. And remember, for all his conservative talk, he LOVES the Toefels…who have been writing about the social engineering of Americans for years. It’s all being done as planned, and slowly. And thier hard work has paid off…

      According to my son, the people under 25 are already lost.
      And that’s why Obama won.

    • fuzislippers 7:46 PM on 11/12/2012 Permalink | Reply

      Great rant, JACG, and I second it. The thing that we have to look at, I believe, is the way that conservative principles are expressed. The left, Alinsky-soaked and sound bite driven, have the upper hand, but we do ourselves no favors by talking over their heads. Conservatives are smarter. Period. But that isn’t enough. We need to be able to sound bite our points, and that, I fear, is where we are lacking. We keep getting drawn into these bizarre arguments (we want black “back in chains,” we want women barefoot and pregnant, in the kitchen, etc.–that’s what the left wants. What they need to push their narrative. We need to counter that by showing how and why our principles are better, how and why they lead to a freer people, to more opportunity for ALL, to a justice that is equal, not weighted by false narratives and hate. Until we manage that, we will lose.

    • Ednar 8:17 PM on 11/12/2012 Permalink | Reply

      Great rantm btw.
      Have NOT watched any news … have not seen/heard any speeches or excerpts from either candidate. I have been in a foul mood since the election. It is taking time to get out of this. I blogged furiously on as many sites I could click on arrogantly putting out the truth trying to expose the lies … but it seems to no avail b/c it fell on deaf ears, blind eyes & walking-dead minds.

      So … what is MY comment MY shock MY disappointment on this years election, 2012?

      Here is an article from Canada. Couldnt say it any better!

      Subject: Fw: Editorial by a Canadian (concerning Tuesday’s Presidential election)
      Date: Nov. 10, 2012

      This was written by a Canadian.

      Somehow, I feel as if I should be apologizing for all of my positive editorials pointing to a Romney victory. But, how can I be expected to apologize for half of the American population who celebrated a GREAT victory of the TAKERS over the MAKERS?

      The finger pointing has already begun with pundits analyzing what Romney should have done, and what he shouldn’t have done.

      So let me give it to you straight . . . ROMNEY IS BLAMELESS. He ran a great campaign.

      It is the people who blindly reelected an already FAILED American Idol who bare the blame.

      From everything I’ve read, seen and heard, Mitt Romney is a very decent person who ran on a REAL platform. He spelled out what his plan was for America. And he stood firm on genuine policies that offered the American people a roadmap out of the impending disaster – towards instead . . . to American prosperity.

      On the other hand, Obama promised FREE birth control pills. He promised to punish the MAKERS with higher taxes and more regulations. And he promised to give the Something-For-Nothing Bunch their FREE RIDE.

      Obama won the Black vote because he’s Black. There is no question about it. NONE WHATSOEVER . . . America is a RACIST country where the Blacks vote on the basis of color.

      Obama won the Hispanic vote because he promised the Hispanics the RIGHT to violate American Immigration Laws, and to give them rights and privileges unavailable to other communities.

      And he won the general vote because of the lack of intelligence of the American people, a level of intelligence, which after yesterday’s election results is beyond understanding.

      I’ve been hearing this morning from some Republicans on television, how the Republicans have to change their philosophy and strategy to attract more women, Blacks, and Hispanics. But, none of these people with this stupid idea have said how.


      If the Republicans should decide to abandon their principles to BUY Female, Black, Hispanic and WELFARE votes, how would that make them any different from the Democrats?

      HERE IS WHAT BEAT THE REPUBLICANS that would have made Nazi Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels proud.


      It would not have made any difference WHATSOEVER who the Republicans would have chosen to be their candidate, since the media would have found or created any way they could to demean him or her, to the point of OUTRIGHT Character Assassination.

      It’s one thing for the media to be in the so-called tank for Obama. It’s not right, but just about everyone has a bias. But . . . having the media doing the work of lying and covering for Obama is another thing entirely.


      The mainstream media withheld vital information from the voters. They highlighted NON-EXISTENT Obama successes, while keeping serious Obama failures from the headlines, such as how the President contributed to the murder of FOUR Americans in Benghazi . . . AND THEN LIED ABOUT IT.

      The media . . . for all intent and purposes NEVER covered how Obama’s Arab Spring has become the World’s NIGHTMARE. And how Europe is already falling over the edge of the financial cliff without so much as a whisper from Obama.

      Or how Iran is laughing at Obama’s America, while they work away at building their BOMB that can “WIPE ISRAEL OFF THE MAP”, while holding the rest of the world HOSTAGE.

      The media NEVER even discussed the abhorrent cost of gasoline at the pumps, the rising cost of food and essentials, laying the blame at the feet of Obama, as they surely would have, had the President been named George W Bush.

      That said . . . While the media LIED outright for Obama, they also participated as willing accomplices in the never-ending series of outright lies and distortions against Romney.


      Like most people, I was expecting those Centrist and Independent minded voters to come in huge numbers to Romney’s side. But that never happened. And it didn’t happen because there really are no Centrist or Independent-minded voters.

      There are people who like to define themselves as Centrist and Independent because it makes them feel special, where in reality, they are on the LEFT pretending to be something they are not.


      Chris Christie HELPED Romney lose this election by telling all of America’s population how proud he was of PRESIDENT Barack Obama, for being such a great President and UNIFIER during the hurricane crisis.

      Just for giving Obama this ENDORSEMENT during such a critical time . . . Christie should never be forgiven.


      The following are KEY issues at the top of Obama’s agenda from the first day he won office in 2008, that he will now push for with every fiber of his being.

      1 – Obamacare will destroy the world’s best healthcare system, while spending Americans into the poorhouse, as he moves to fully eliminate private insurance options.

      2 – There will be CARD-CHECK, giving the Unions unfettered power over the MAKERS.

      3 – The Media Fairness Doctrine will become a part of FCC regulations that will go a long way to muting Conservative voices.

      4 – Fewer manufacturers will set-up shop in America.

      5 – Businesses of all sizes will focus almost entirely on reducing the size of staff to avoid the astronomical costs of providing employment.

      6 – Unemployment will rise significantly.


      THE OBAMA SUPREME COURT . . . Perhaps one of the MOST damaging long-term results of this election victory for the LEFT, will be the NEW Supreme Court that will be appointed by Obama, that will push the Court FURTHER to the LEFT than anyone can imagine.

      In essence . . . what we witnessed last night . . . is nothing short of the irreversible step towards the end of the American DREAM and that Shining City On That Hill.


      As a result of this election – a whole new strategy by Conservatives WORLDWIDE must be developed, where people who believe in INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS opposed to Socialist COLLECTIVIST RIGHTS, must come together to separate ourselves from the masses.


      Like just about EVERY Conservative, I was sickened watching the returns, thinking to myself . . . What the HELL?

      Why should I even bother to write and fight to the point of personal sacrifice, when more than half of the people are so ignorant of consequences in search of COLLECTIVISM and intrusive government, that they WILLINGLY threw their country under Obama’s Bus?

      When that New York SCREWBALL Mayor (Bloomberg) legislated the size of soft drinks FREE PEOPLE could NOT buy, who accepted HIS decision to take away THEIR Freedom, it said all that needed to be said about how unimportant FREEDOM means to most people.

      THIS ISN’T JUST AN AMERICAN PROBLEM . . . this is a GLOBAL disease that must be defeated.

      In my next editorial, I will write about what we can do to win back our FREEDOMS and punish those who are taking our FREEDOMS away.

      Today is indeed a very new day.

      Best Regards . . . Howard Galganov

Compose new post
Next post/Next comment
Previous post/Previous comment
Show/Hide comments
Go to top
Go to login
Show/Hide help
shift + esc