Articles Comments

SENTRY JOURNAL » Uncategorized » I’m a little confused…

I’m a little confused…

So according to the latest Rasmussen poll (Nov 30) 38 percent of likely GOP primary voters support Newt Gingrich while 17 percent support Mitt Romney.  So basically 55 percent of the conservatives who participated in the poll support big government candidates.  I’m a little confused.  I thought conservatism was about preserving the institutions that protected our rights and promoted liberty.  I thought it was about less regulation, reestablishing our constitution, sound fiscal policy, individualism, and oh yeah LIMITED GOVERNMENT.  And yet 55 percent of likely GOP primary voters are supporting candidates who have less than stellar conservative records.  Am I missing something here?

Yesterday on the way home from work I listened to Mark Levin attack Ron Paul’s foreign policy position and how out of touch he was with real world threats.  He chastised the man in his opening segment for 20 minutes and even at one point compared his foreign policy position with those of the OWS crowd.  He hinted that Mr. Paul was not a friend to the military even though Mr. Paul is a veteran and has stated over and over again he supports a strong military for national DEFENSE.  He ruthlessly hammered Mr. Paul on his foreign policy position.  He did go on to say that he agrees with Mr. Paul on a number of things on the domestic front; however his views on the world around us are out of the mainstream of conservatism.  I like Mark Levin and listen to his show every day, but his attack on Mr. Paul left me a little confused.

Here’s why I’m so confused.  In the last 10 years since 9/11 we as a people have witnessed firsthand our liberties erode away.  Not by the hands of some foreign power, but through the power of legislation passed in the House and Senate by our own elected officials.  America will always be able to defend our shores as long as we have a robust nuclear arsenal.  We have the ability to respond anywhere in the world with the best trained airmen, seamen, marines, and soldiers within 24 hours right from our own shores.  We have done it before in the past and we have the capacity to do it again in the future.  Any reasonable person in America must be able to see this and yet we’re asked to believe that these big government type politicians (Democrats and Republicans) who have used the power of executive order and legislation to strip our liberties from us have our best interest as heart.  We’re asked to give them a free pass for ignoring the constitution and expanding the size of government as long as they support an interventionist foreign policy position.  That flawed train of thought is counterproductive and does not promote individual liberty.  Here’s an idea!  How about we reverse the thought process and apply the same criteria that Mr. Levin uses against Ron Paul’s foreign policy position towards the other candidates who support big government intervention in our lives.  Let’s turn the argument back on them and apply it to individual liberty.

How does this sound?  I want a candidate who supports a non-interventionist policy in regards to my individual rights and liberties.  Now who can’t get behind that?  I know two candidates who can’t get behind that and they’re the two leading in the polls; they’re track record speaks for itself.  What does that say for the current state of conservatism and those who claim to be conservative?

It’s says we’re lost and that maybe I’m not the only one confused…

Liberty forever, freedom for all!

 

Share
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Filed under: Uncategorized · Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

opinions powered by SendLove.to
Comments
  • LD Jackson December 10, 2011 at 6:12 PM

    I was just reading about Levin’s rant and it sounds like the man really went off. I’m not surprised, given the fact that he is part of the Republican establishment. He accused Ron Paul of a lot of things, but one comment I read sums it up nicely. The accusations he made do not have their basis in fact.

    I’m like you, a little confused. The rise of Newt Gingrich in the polls astounds me, given his past record. The very people who say they are supporting him say they stand for small government and more liberty. Why they support Gingrich is beyond me.
    LD Jackson recently posted..The Rise of Newt GingrichMy Profile

    • John Carey December 10, 2011 at 7:36 PM

      It’s very strange indeed Larry. We are conservatives and one of the cornerstones of our philosophy is limited government. How can we just ignore the fact that a few of our candidates do not subscribe to the basics our philosophy. The only way this can happen is if it is no longer a part of our philosophy and maybe that’s the simple truth for many conservatives. They have grown comfortable with big government and it’s really not a deal breaker anymore. And if this is the case what does that say about conservatism and where it’s heading?
      John Carey recently posted..I’m a little confused…My Profile

  • Steve Dennis December 11, 2011 at 6:44 AM

    I wish I had an answer for you John but I am just as confused about this as you are. I don’t understand how the top two contenders are Romney and Gingrich, two big government types who seem to be the opposite of what a majority of Republicans think their nominee should be. It is obvious that the Republicans didn’t learn anything after the John McCain disaster in 2008, and it is also becoming obvious that they people aren’t yet serious about really fixing the problem.
    Steve Dennis recently posted..Gunrunner: Hank Johnson blames Fast and Furious on the NRA, the Tea Party, and the SenateMy Profile

    • John Carey December 11, 2011 at 5:07 PM

      The problem is the media and many of the conservative talk show host have led the crowd down this road. They help write the narrative and the uninformed wing of the conservative moment lapped it up. Look I’m not saying Ron Paul is the answer. All I’m asking for his an objective look at Romney and Gingrich’s support for the big government framework. If conservative radio is going to scrutinize Mr. Paul for his foreign policy position or comments he made about 9/11 being a pretext to invade Iraq, then they should shower Romney and Gingrich with the same level scrutiny about their support for big government solutions.
      John Carey recently posted..Teeing it up: A Round at the LINKsMy Profile

  • Silverfiddle December 11, 2011 at 8:44 AM

    I too like Ron Paul. His monetary and economic policies are dead on. I find his foreign policy and 9/11 pronouncements disturbing, especially since they attract so many OWS and liberal kooks.

    Quite frankly, Ron Paul does sound like a leftwing nutball when he talks about foreign policy. He speaks the truth, but he says it so inartfully, one can only suspect he is saying it the way he does to attract the leftwing loons. I also don’t like his comments on 9/11. He’s not a troofer, but his comments sound tailored to attract that crowd.

    Judge Napolitano is a great libertarian. He and Ron Paul share many views, but the judge says is so much better. On the other end Jesse Ventura is an unhinged ranter. On that spectrum, Ron Paul needs less Ventura and more Napolitano. Is Ron Paul purposely trying to piss people off?
    Silverfiddle recently posted..It’s Not a Free Marketplace…My Profile

    • John Carey December 11, 2011 at 5:44 PM

      You’re spot-on with your analysis on Paul needs to be more Napolitano and less Ventura. Paul does have a problem expressing his views in a clear and meaningful way sometimes. For instant if he would say they we simply cannot afford these wars anymore and tie it more with spending then strategic positioning, more people would embrace that notion. He accomplishes what he wants in the end, but he does it in a manner that people can get behind.
      John Carey recently posted..Teeing it up: A Round at the LINKsMy Profile

  • theCL December 11, 2011 at 11:11 PM

    Random thoughts …

    According to a September 26, 2011 Gallup poll, 81% of Americans are pissed off with the government. Certainly the highest point of dissatisfaction during my lifetime.

    More from Gallup … June 29, 2011 poll says 72% favor Afghanistan pullout … November 2, 2011 poll says 75% favor Iraq pullout …

    Polling on Ron Paul is about double what it was 3 months ago.

    Most of the common complaints about Paul seem, at least to me, to be about personality. The way he talks, the way he walks, etc. Are you looking for a president … or a date?

    Looking at poll numbers, it’s easy to argue that Paul is the only Republican candidate with “mainstream” foreign policy views. “Mainstream,” that is, among the electorate.

    Gingrich, Romney, Santorum, and Bachmann sound significantly more aggressive than even GWB in regards to foreign policy. That may appease the Republican base, but it’s a major turnoff when it comes to independents and disgruntled Democrats. Paul on the other hand …

    Paul also has a consistent record sticking up for the people against both corporatism and the Establishment. He’s a choice, not an echo. Does anyone really believe a pro-war, watered-down social-democrat (the rest of the GOP pack) is going to take votes away from “The One” ???
    theCL recently posted..Photograph Rule 5My Profile

  • theCL December 11, 2011 at 11:32 PM

    One last thought …

    America has a long history of voting for antiwar candidates. GWB campaigned against nation-building, policing the world, and even said America needed to mind its own business in 2000. Obama won as an antiwar candidate. Obama will run as an antiwar candidate again (successfully against anyone but Paul). Despite increasing troop levels, attacking new enemies, and waging more war than GWB, “conservative” rhetoric over the past few years has helped to paint a picture of Obama as the man of peace he is not. The “withdrawals” will bolster this false image too. Romney, Gingrich, et. al. can’t attack him as a warmonger without discrediting the GOP narrative. Paul can.
    theCL recently posted..Photograph Rule 5My Profile

    • John Carey December 12, 2011 at 6:07 AM

      Because Americans have a long history of voting for anti-war candidates this is one of the reason why Ron Paul is doing so well. This is why I believe Ron Paul has huge crossover appeal and why he can beat Obama. Like you said, I’m not sure the other Republican candidates will stand up as well against Obama even though Obama has been a war president. I 100 percent support our troops no matter where they are deployed. They deserve that from us because they are simply the instruments of policy.
      John Carey recently posted..The Characteristics of a Newt My Profile

      • theCL December 12, 2011 at 2:47 PM

        You’ve made an important distinction here, that (in my mind) way too many people fail to recognize, which is the separation of troops and policy. I would go further and say that sometimes supporting the troops requires dissent and opposition to policy that puts their lives at risk for questionable and/or suspect reasons.

        Ron Paul has huge crossover appeal and … can beat Obama.

        I agree. The Republican base is Paul’s toughest critic, mostly due to their support of our current wars. If we look at the candidates and issues from strictly an electoral point of view, we have to realize (even if it is contrary to our own personal opinions) that being pro-war will be a liability in the general election, not an asset. Especially if the economy continues to slide downward (as it certainly will).

        Americans also overwhelmingly hate the TSA! Who, besides Paul, can offer the American public a credible promise to end this security charade?

        I may disagree, but I do understand why so many people support the wars. Well, I understand why they support the wars in general anyway, but I still don’t understand why they accept (and thus support) the current strategery. But considering where the country is now and the candidates that are available, conservatives have a stark choice to make in 2012 … downsizing government and increasing domestic liberty, or nation-building and perpetual war. Philosophical problems aside, each available candidate only offers one or the other. Which will it be?
        theCL recently posted..Photograph Rule 5My Profile

        • John Carey December 12, 2011 at 9:34 PM

          What has always bothered me is you can support the military and be for a strong national defense without always wanting to nation build. This is all Ron Paul is saying and he is viewed as some sort of out of touch kook. I just don’t understand when and how conservatives became so convinced that national defense included nation building or the notion of perpetual war. As I said I believe in a strong defense and I support our military 100 percent. These men and women are indeed America’s finest.
          John Carey recently posted..The Characteristics of a Newt My Profile

  • Teresa December 13, 2011 at 8:25 PM

    Mark Levin isn’t really considered a part of the Republican establishment. He likes Sarah Palin and is a supporter of hers and does quite a few things going against the establishment. I agree with Levin that Ron Paul is out of touch on foreign policy issues, although not on all items related to foreign policy. His domestic policies are great! Overall I like Ron Paul even though he isn’t my first choice for president. People care more about the economy than the wars, especially since one of them is ending very soon.
    Teresa recently posted..Bizarre Love Triangle: Girl Scouts, Planned Parenthood, and National Federation for Catholic Youth MinistryMy Profile