|Screw you, true conservatives|
If you're savvy enough to be reading this blog you undoubtedly know that the conservative movement is one fly-ridden stinkin' hot mess.
Cognitive dissonance, "winning at all costs" and a movement tethered at the hip to an outdated party with no interest in furthering limited-government pro-individual freedom Jeffersonian ideals has conservatism circling the political sewer drain.
On this point, the "architect" of "big-government conservatism" (no less an oxymoron than "limited-government socialist"), Karl Rove, has a new PAC called the Conservative Victory Project whose aim is to reclaim the conservative movement and Republican party in a statist/squish/progressive-lite sorta way and obliterate the once-nascent libertarian-ish Tea Party movement that handed the GOP its massive 2010 congressional landslide...
Knowing what Karl Rove's power role in the second GW Bush term gave America (read: socialism with a big fat 'R' label), Rove's new move comes as no surprise. The conservative outrage to it is a bit surprising though. Where were you guys and gals the last 8 + years as the GOP created the perfect storm to give this nation Obama?
Why do you watch and listen to useful idiot kneepad-donning entertainers like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh that lap up what charlatan progressives like Rove have to say? Need I remind you that neo-conservative Republicans are now Obama's unconstitutional drone war's best friends?
I guess "getting it" now is better than never; but it might just be too late.
There's a piece at Freedom Works that dovetails nicely into just what we are looking at; I don't agree with everything the author is saying but he does make some brilliant points.
Here's a few:
The vast majority of those in the Republican establishment, like Mr. Boehner, are conservative or libertarian by ideology. None of them is a screaming Marxist. The question is whether they vote their ideology and construct bills around that ideology, or whether they maneuver and connive to give the appearance of favoring their ideology while their true intent is acquiring and retaining political power for themselves. (...)That's all for now from me - what do you think?
The distinguishing question between establishment and idealists is whether someone thinks it's more important to get elected or to represent his ideals. Almost everyone has a set of policy positions they would not change or back away from to get elected. People with a larger number of strongly held such positions are idealists, and people with a smaller number of more weakly held beliefs are establishmentarians.
The battle is not between "RINOs" and "conservatives". The battle is over the question of retaining power versus clinging to ideals at all costs. If you argue that you must avoid the conflict to live to fight another day, you are arguing that your own power and position are more valuable than using them to defend what you believe.