About Me

Name: Allen Caeden
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Search

Blog Roll

 

So who is the leader of the conservative movement?

Posted by Allen Caeden on Friday, September 25, 2009 8:55:52 PM
   Having thought about this for a while I do not see a single leader for a revival of Traditional Reagan Conservatism, and not the moderate neo-conservatives who utterly destroyed the GOP. Like 1977 when the GOP was smashed and Reagan with much grassroots support rebuilt the GOP into a Traditional Conservative Party, and in this he succeded magnificently. Today the grassroots of the GOP and even independent conservatives have utterly had it with the current GOP leadership. So what are we seeing? First, there are the national tea parties, and the massive turnout in townhall meetings, but this movement does not have a standeredbearer at the moment, although Palin 2012 T-shirts and signs dominated the crowds. 

   The other leaders who are pushing for a conservative takeover of the GOP are Mark Levin, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Tammy Bruce, and Glenn Beck. These people are highly influencial among the grassroots of conservatives and libertarians. But they also seem to be placing hope in a future political figure and that is Sarah Palin. Recently in Hong Kong Palin took a swipe at the "compassionate conservitism" (a.k.a neo-conservative crap) by defining herself as a "common sense conservative" and that what Traditional Conservatism is, it is applied "common sense" to politics and economics. If Sarah Palin does run for president she has many things going for her. First, the tea party movement that is just waiting for her to take the lead. Second, a conservative base who deeply loves her. Third, she has very powerful supporters in the media, such as: Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Greta Van Sustrin, Glenn Beck, Mark Levin, and Tammy Bruce just to name a few. I also think that Neil Cavuto is strongly leaning towards her as well. There are also conservative websites who support her as well such as Newsmax, Drudge, Redstate.com, and Human Events. Not to leave out her almost 1 million followers on her facebook page. I just want to give you a glimpse of what is both going on and will most likely happen in the next few years.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Palin, McCain, and the GOP Elites

Posted by Allen Caeden on Friday, September 25, 2009 8:30:31 PM
This was a great piece by a college student that is worth a quick read. Here it is:
 

Moderates Murdered McCain, Now Punish Palin

By Patrick Ross

It’s not Sarah Palin’s fault. No matter how much the media and the squishy moderates who propped up John McCain try to blame it on her, this loss falls squarely at the feet of the nominee and every other “compassionate conservative” complicit in muddying the definition of a Republican.
Every real conservative saw this coming a long time ago — as far back as eight years, the first time this loser went down to, of all people, George W. Bush. The only reason McCain didn’t suffer the biggest wipeout in American political history was because of Palin.
My original plan was to vote for Calvin Coolidge. I figured I’d much rather endorse Silent Cal than loud-mouthed, high-pitched Yosemite Sam. I ended up voting for McCain, but my vote was really cast for Palin. Say what you will about her intelligence, but all I care about is a politician committed to reigning in government. I don’t care if she hasn’t read a page of Shakespeare as long as she isn’t calculating how next to involve government in matters where it doesn’t belong. The presidency should be a rather simple job. The less the president “does,” the better.
While the so-called “moderates” didn’t take well to Palin, the base was immediately galvanized, as is evident by the stratospheric spike in contributions following the pick. McCain spent the last weeks of his campaign trying to save formerly solid GOP states, which speaks volumes because, by that time, he had muzzled Palin.
Republican turnout dropped and 20 percent of conservatives jumped ship for the messiah. I’d venture that the turnout would have been even lower and the defections higher if she hadn’t been on the ticket. Without Palin, McCain would have been worse off than Walter Mondale in 1984.
It says a lot that the media and the hacks inside the McCain camp have circled the wagons against Palin. The insiders, being their usual traitorous selves, are trying to slough off the blame for their miserable performance so that they can continue working campaigns and attending state dinners. It’s also telling that the worst they can come up with are petty personal smears: she answered a door in her towel (the horror!) and she bought some nice clothing (oh no!). Of course, it doesn’t matter that Obama blew $2 million on his victory party, not to mention orchestrating the most expensive campaign in history. Palin’s the villain, right?
I’m glad McCain was defeated because he would have been as much an activist as Obama. He claimed to be the spiritual successor to Teddy Roosevelt, which is better than aligning with Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson and John F. Kennedy I suppose, but it’s time Republicans stopped nominating anybody whose activism is going to go beyond sweeping cuts across the board.
The moderate and liberal Republicans got everything they wanted this election: an equivocating campaign about global warming and Joe the Plumber, no personal attacks – including the total exclusion of Jeremiah Wright from official discourse – and a nominee whose claim to fame is voting with the Democrats. Look where this behavior has gotten Republicans over the last 12 years: Bob Dole went down to insurgent, anti-moderate conservatives voting for Ross Perot, Bush narrowly won against candidates as weak as Al Gore and John Kerry and it all culminated with a candidate so “mavericky” that he defeated himself.
Even before Palin’s nomination, polls indicated that moderates were breaking for Obama in excess of 60 percent. Ronald Reagan won landslides with conservatism, not by courting back-stabbing independents like Colin Powel.
McCain’s loss will be harmful in the short term, but it has thoroughly discredited the moderate heads of the party and is going to force a groundswell of reform for the GOP. People on the inside are obviously scared, as is evident by the panicked rush to blame Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and anybody else who didn’t genuflect to the messiah. Conservatives have been Balkanized. It’s time to flush the moderates before they crush the GOP.

Patrick Ross is a fifth-year English and history double-major. He can be reached at pross@uci.edu.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

George Bush's claim to redefine the GOP.

Posted by Allen Caeden on Thursday, September 17, 2009 5:03:51 PM
Matt Latimer, retells a story in his new book Speechless: Tales of a White House Survivor, and Byron York relates it in the Washington Examiner. The story is about how George Bush has boasted about how he redifined the Republican Party from being a cnservative party to a big government party. Here is what Byron York wrote: 
“What is this movement you keep talking about in the speech?” the president asked Latimer.

Latimer explained that he meant the conservative movement — the movement that gave rise to groups like CPAC.

Bush seemed perplexed. Latimer elaborated a bit more. Then Bush leaned forward, with a point to make.

“Let me tell you something,” the president said. “I whupped Gary Bauer’s as-s in 2000. So take out all this movement stuff. There is no movement.”

Bush seemed to equate the conservative movement — the astonishing growth of conservative political strength that took place in the decades after Barry Goldwater’s disastrous defeat in 1964 — with the fortunes of Bauer, the evangelical Christian activist and former head of the Family Research Council whose 2000 presidential campaign went nowhere.

Now it was Latimer who looked perplexed. Bush tried to explain.

“Look, I know this probably sounds arrogant to say,” the president said, “but I redefined the Republican Party.”
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

George Bush's "Compassionate Conservatism" must die a violent death.

Posted by Allen Caeden on Thursday, September 17, 2009 4:02:30 PM
This from Newsmax.com, where both Glenn Beck & Rush Limbaugh state that George Bush was absolutely no conservatism, but was one of the greatest grower of government and federal spending in U.S. history. Here is the article:
 

If the Republican Party has any chance of regaining its leading position, it must put to "death" George W. Bush's "compassionate conservatism," says top talker Glenn Beck.

 

Beck, a rising ratings star at Fox News and one the nation's leading talk hosts, has earned his popularity taking on some of the most cherished shibboleths of the Republican establishment.

 

During a Fox News interview with top radio talker Rush Limbaugh this past Thursday, Beck used the occasion to slam Bush's policies as inherently detrimental to core Republican principles.

 

Beck asked Limbaugh: "Rush, will you — help me out on this, because you always get thrown under the bus, that — well, you know, where were you when George Bush was spending, et cetera, et cetera. Address — because I — I have to tell you, the Republican Party doesn't get it. You just said, echoed again what I was saying about the progressive Republicans. George Bush, this compassionate conservative movement has got to die a violent death."

 

Limbaugh agreed with Beck's assessment that Bush had gone off the GOP reservation.

 

Limbaugh responded: "Yes, Glenn, let me tell you something. I don't — personally, I don't mind people asking me that question, 'Where were you with all the spending?' I remember — I don't want to mention any names — I was getting phone calls from people in the White House angry because I was opposed to every attempt they made to amnesty. I was opposed to the Medicare expansion. . . And they have found a way and called me mad as he can be. 'What do you mean this is good — good in the private sector?' I said, 'No, it's an entitlement and Republicans don't do that.' . . . but the elected Republicans — here's the problem with it — when you're a Republican and your president is a Republican, you have to go along with it. If you break from him, then you got party disunity and so forth."

 

President George W. Bush was the largest social spender in history, according to a recent report by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. In his first term Bush increased discretionary spending 19 percent. During Bush's second term federal spending increased 49 percent.

 

The Mercatus Center said Bush's spending made President Bill Clinton's administration look conservative.

 

The Center noted: "Adjusted for inflation, in eight years, President Clinton increased the federal budget by 11 percent. In eight years, President Bush increased it by a whopping 104 percent."

 

Beck suggested the stakes are high unless the GOP gets back to its roots.

 

He told Limbaugh: "And I'll tell you, they keep making the argument that if you vote for a conservative — oh, well, we're going to round up, you know, all of the unwed mothers and throw them in furnaces or whatever it is. That's not what this movement is about, at all. You're right on the social aspect. What this movement is about is they are destroying our children's future. Look, I don't care what you do in your own bedroom. You — we won't have a bedroom left anymore. We're all going to be living in Hooverville or Obamaville if we don't stop the spending."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The revival of Traditional Conservatism, but what is it?

Posted by Allen Caeden on Wednesday, September 02, 2009 9:55:09 PM
Over the past months Mark Levin's book Liberty & Tyranny: A Conservative Manfifesto has been an absolute bestseller. In this book Mark Levin strongly puts forth a manifesto for what is known asTraditional Conservatism. Now since the election I have heard every Republican under the sun saying that our party needs to return to its conservative "roots". I have heard this from Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Ann Coulter, Bobby Jindal, Newt Gingrich, Michael Steele, Mark Levin, Sarah Palin, and etc. They all claim that the Republican Party has left its conservative "roots", yet how can this be since we have had a Republican President for eight years and even a Republican Congress from 1994-2006? My friends we have been living under conservative rule, but it has been the policies of what is known as Neo-Conservatism. It is easy to fall under the belief that all "conservatives" believe the same thing, but nothing could be further from the truth. There are basically two streams of conservatism.
 
   The battle that is going on is between: Traditional Conservatism and Neo-Conservatism. So what is the difference? Let me point out what each camp believes.
 
Neo-Conservatives on the issues:
 
1.) Their origins- Neo-Conservatism began in the 1970's and they were semi-conservative pro-government Democrats who left the Democratic Party because of its move toward extreme socialistic liberalism and they joined the Republican Party (and brought their semi-liberalism with them).
 
2.) Their foreign policy- Is to convert the world to democracy, even in places where democracy will never work because of the cultural barriers to democracy.
 
3.) Government- They support big government and have a low opinion of states' rights.
 
4.) Spending- They are big spenders on social programs and believe in deficits. Balancing the budget is not a priority.
 
5.) Welfare- They generally support it.
 
6.) Social issues- Generally give lip servive to conservative social issues, but rarely pursue them when in office.
 
7.) Economic issues- Very extreme in free trade and globalization. Supporters of big buisnesses.
 
8.) Immigration- Believe in open boreders and have done nothing to secure the borders and they support general amnesty.
 
9.) Education- The federal government must regulate it and support it.

10.) The Constitution- They never bother to ask whether the laws they vote for are constitutional or not. They reject the notion of federalism (divided government).

11.) Judicial Activism- They have no plans to oppose unelected judges who make laws that violate the Constitution. 
 
Faces of neo-conservitism: Both Bushes, Bill Kristol, Fred Barnes, the Weekly Standard, Walter Krauthammer, most of the Senate Republicans and especially John McCain and Lindsey Graham.
 
Traditional Conservatism on the issues:
 
1.) Their origins: Thomas Jefferson's Republicanism, Andrew Jackson's Popularism, Edmund Burke, Russell Kirk, John Locke, The Federalist Papers & The Anti-Federalist Papers, Barry Goldwater, and finally Ronald Reagan.
 
2.) Foreign policy- Use force to protect American intrests but it is not our job to always build and save nations and police the world in every particular circumstance. It is not the job of the United States to convert the world to democracy. It is our job to intervene when human rights are being completely trampled by evil tyrants.
 
3.) Government- Government is the problem not the solution. Cut government programs. Strongly protect states' rights (federalism).
 
4.) Spending- Strongly believe in cutting government programs and radically reducing spending. Balancing budgets should be a goal. Primary spending should be on the military.
 
5.) Welfare: Oppose it.
 
6.) Social issues: Takes social issues seriously. The root of most problems in the country are the result of immoral behavior. Welfare and social programs is simply the goverment bailing people out of the consequences of their actions. A virtuous and prudent people has little need for government.
 
7.) Economics- Deregulate businesses. Tax cuts across the borad and remove many taxes such as the death tax and the corporate tax. Supports free trade and low tariffs if they be needed. 

8.) Immigration- Supports securing the border and limited amnesty.
 
9.) Education- Is not the job of the federal government but is a state and local issue. Support vouchers or tax credits at most.

10.) The Constitution- They take seriously whether the Constitution prohibts a law or not. It is well understood that the Constitution mandates limited government. Federalism is passionately held up.

11.) Judicial Activism- Activist federal judges including the U.S. Supreme Court must be reigned in and their power to create unconstitional laws from the bench must be fought. Judges should have term limits, or be subject to popular elections. The U.S. Congress should have the power to overturn outragous and unconstitutional rulings from the U.S. Supreme Court, thus the ultimate power must rest with the people and not unelected judges who are responsible to no one.
 
The most famous Tradtional Conservatives are President Ronald Reagan, most Southern Republicans, Michael Savage, Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Senator Jim Demint, and Sarah Palin.
 
Please read Mark Levin's book, in it he refers to moderate Republicans and neo-conservatives as "Neo-Statists" as opposed to the Democrats who are full blown "Statists". My friends we must support the traditionalist conservatives, because the neo-conservatives have been killing our party. We have not had a decent Republican President since President Reagan and we all know it. Bush senior led to Bill Clinton, Bob Dole was a dud and led to 4 more years of Clinton, and Bush junior (along with John Mccain) has led us to a radical Democratic Congress and BO (Barak Obama). It is time to reclaim our party. The Republican elites are all neo-conservatives and the base are mostly traditionalist conservatives, and we need to reclaim our party from the neo-conservatives. This is why it is so important to pay attention in selecting Republican state chairmanships and in selecting true traditional conservatives during the primaries: both on a local level and a national level. The last thing we need is another government growing neo-conservative. My friends throw the Republican neo-conservatives overboard and put traditional conservatives back in power and things will change for the better! Neo-Conservatism has been tried and has been an absolute disaster, now let's throw the S.O.B's out!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Great article: The Power of Sarah Palin.

Posted by Allen Caeden on Wednesday, September 02, 2009 9:29:38 PM

Prelude to 2012: how did Democrats let Sarah Palin destroy health care reform with Facebook?

September 2, 4:49 PMProgressive ExaminerD.K. Jamaal
6 comments Print Email RSS Subscribe

  Sarah Palin stands on stage during the election night rally on
November 4, 2008 in Phoenix, Arizona. (Getty images)

It’s not even 2012, and Sarah Palin, the “lightweight” Caribou Barbie stupid dumb right-wing inexperienced unqualified unaccomplished religious wacko birther enabling nut that came from Wasilla, has already defeated President Obama.

CLICK HERE to see SLIDESHOW of the Palinator!

She has trounced Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

She has trumped MoveOn, ACORN, and Obama’s mass army of volunteers at Organizing for America.

She has out-demagogued the three stooges of MSNBC Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, and Rachel Maddow.

Oh, and she did it with Facebook notes.

Read that again: she did it with Facebook notes.

The notion that Obamacare would include panels making end-of-life decisions for Americans had floated unnoticed in the ether for months, before Palin’s Facebook note dated August 7, 2009 – ominously warning of “Obama’s death panel” stocked with “evil” government “bureaucrats” who would deny care to the “sick, elderly, and disabled.”

Now, let’s keep in mind that Mrs. Palin is (should be?) little more than a celebrity curio at this point.

She holds no elected office.

She is not a party official, nor the head of any chartered political organization. She is not a Fortune 500 businesswoman, not a powerful member of the prognosticating pundit class, not a cited academic authority.

She is a private citizen. But, oh, what a private citizen!


Sarah Palin speaks at the Republican Governors Association
conference November 13, 2008 in Miami, Florida.(Getty images)

How should those who disagreed with this private citizen’s assessment of the health care debate have responded to her allegations? Simple.

They should have ignored her, as they would do any one they really considered a rube with no credibility and no power.

But many Obama supporters aren’t that intelligent, and the ones who are know Sarah Palin is nobody's village idiot.

That's why they -- stupidly -- tried to silence her so viciously. Oops.

Palin-the-puppetmaster uttered “death panel” and the left-wing, right on cue, went running after the thrown bone, tails wagging and tongues slobbering in hyperventilation.

The self-defeating inability of Democrats to ignore the Palinator magnified the “death panel” claim.

They kept Palin squarely in the mainstream, made “death panels” the talk of the town. And by the time you hear something enough it becomes true. Seniors were scared. Independents were worried. And the debate was completely hijacked.

Palin distracted health care progressives at a time when we should have been explicating an optional government plan to compete with predatory private insurance companies as the pragmatic alternative to socialist single-payer and the laissez faire rapaciousness preferred by Wall Street-Washington oligarchs.

Democratic talking head Paul Begala got a lot of press by summing Palin up as a "whack job" and a “lightweight.”

 

 

 

In the meantime, Palin kept releasing healthcare killing Facebook notes – spreading conservative anti-Obamacare articles (August 8 and 9), doubling-down on death panels (August 12), accusing reformists of wanting to ration health care (August 13), and pushing tort reform (August 21).

As the arguments gained traction, and as Obamacrats continued bending to the big pharamaceutical lobby in compromising away real reform, liberals – instead of pushing back with relentless, focused talking points in for price controls, public options, and mandates – frothed at the mouth, launched sexist attacks against Palin, and denigrated town hall protestors.

The result of all this?

Counseling is out of the proposals – just like Sarah Palin the Lightweight of Wasilla wanted. And as an added bonus, the neglected public option is now off the table, with the President unwilling to fight for it. Government ability to bargain for lower drug prices? Denied. Consumer ability to buy cheaper drugs from other countries? Gone. A universal mandate? Obama wouldn't even support that in the primaries.


PERRY, GA - DECEMBER 1: Sarah Palin arrives at a campaign rally for Republican
incumbent Sen. Saxby Chambliss, on December 1, 2008 in Perry, Georgia. (Getty)

So that’s all folks. There goes real health care reform.

I wish I, a private citizen, could write some Facebook notes and get the kind of health care bill I wanted.

It is, as Hillbuzz.com put it, “truly, truly remarkable.”

If Palin can manage to throw Obama off message with Facebook, I shudder to think what Palin can accomplish with the entire right-of-center electoral apparatus behind her at the top of a national ticket.

When the Democratic Congress finally passes its Palinized, Obamagutted health care non-reform bill with nothing in it resembling cost control, competition, or anything remotely progressive, the epitaph should read:

“Here lies health care reform: killed by Facebook, buried by Obama.”

By Facebook. By Sarah Palin’s Facebook notes.

You don't have to agree with Palin's policies to be wowed by this -- or to get a kick out of seeing the misogynist, working class-hating East Coast manchild geeks get their butts handed to them by this PTA mom. This is populism at its most stunning.

Whack job? Depends on your politics.

But lightweight? Ha! Whatever you say, Begala.

See you in 2012, private citizen Palin. Do your thang, babe. Lightweight your way right to the Oval Office.

Godspeed.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »