Media and Political Masterminds are so clueless

When Republicans emphasize abortion as an issue, they win. When they de-emphasize it, for the most part, they lose.

Yes, the Republicans screwed up big time under Bush, and they did so because of the Neoconservatives. A neocon is worse than a Democrat because they tax like conservatives and spend like Republicans; they adopt the “incrementalist” approach to abortion, wasting time and money on meaningless gestures; and, of course, they get us involved in too many globalist entanglements.

With the exception of War Hawks in the Tea Party movement, the Tea Party represents paleoconservatism. I love it when neocons complain that Ron Paul is “co-opting” the Tea Party movement, since he actually started it.

Apparently, the new strategy of the Democrats in the upcoming election is “We’re not as bad as the Republicans.”
Gee, if our choice is “bad” and “not as bad,” maybe it’s time we threw away the two party false dichotomy?

Maybe the Tea Party candidates, who are officially Republican but essentially represent a growing third party movement, *do* represent something different.

I keep seeing headlines–mostly on that bastion of objectivity called Yahoo News–that the GOP needs to “downplay social issues” to win, or that Tea Party victories in primaries are thwarting GOP’s goals because there’s no way those pro-life, small government types can win!


3 responses to “Media and Political Masterminds are so clueless

  1. My question is why must an anti-abortion standpoint *require* a slavish link to atheist libertarian attitudes towards government and the unlimited use of private property? Why can’t we have a politician who is authentic to both pro-life and social justice teachings?

    I’m willing to bet, with how fed up Main Street is with Wall Street, such a politician would win. Where is our Huey Long?

  2. Also:
    “With the exception of War Hawks in the Tea Party movement, the Tea Party represents paleoconservatism”

    I disagree. The more vocal part of the Tea Party movement seems to represent radical atheist small government libertarianism (after all, what is larger government, than what Christians profess to believe in, Jesus Christ as the once and future king?). And that would most certainly include Ron Paul, as big a worshiper of Mammon as they get.

  3. Ted, I agree, sort of.

    Libertarianism is not necessarily atheist: in the absence of a monarchy (which is as small and limited a government as one can get), I’d choose libertarianism. But, of course, as you know, I emphasize constitutionalism to say that it’s OK for the feds to do what the Constitution says it’s OK to do, and I don’t necessarily mind “big government” at the state or local levels.

    However, the reason it’s “necessary” is the Democrats make it so.

    And sadly pro-lifers still haven’t accepted that the Republicans are lying to them.

    I was hoping for a movement that would reflect Americans’ anger over the financial crises–both Wall Street’s corruption and the Government’s over-taxation and creation of fake money–coupled with anger over the war and a pro-life viewpoint. So far, it isn’t happening. After Pat Buchanan and Bob Casey, Sr., Huckabee is the closest I’ve seen to a politician who really reflects what I believe.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s