The Black Republican

And you think that Bush and this current genre of Republican lawmakers are somehow conservative???

I've gone back into our archives, and while at some point I've probably suggested the President was some breed of conservative, it hasn't happened recently. So you seem not to be reading carefully what we write, and you're just hanging on some misinterpretation of who and what we are based on some superficial perusal of the site. The fact that you're having a hard time addressing issues directly, and just spout meaningless rhetoric backs up that assessment. In point of fact from my review of previous articles, most often I seem to refer to the President in contrast to most mainstream conservative values.

That all said, Bush is clearly more conservative than, say, Rudy Giuliani. The various members of Congress you refer to, of course, run the gamut of the various strains of conservatism. And while I prefer some versions of conservatism more than others, I'm not opposed to having a fairly big tent under which we can argue about which flavor of conservatism is best, and where individual conservatives can disagree with one another (even within each school) on individual issues. You can't make a majority party by being too rigid, but if you're too accepting of any and all apostasy, there's no point to having a party in the first place. The key to progress is fairly balancing ideological rigor with democratic consensus-building.

This is no longer the republican party of Abraham Lincoln.

I could lecture on this small sentence alone, probably for days. You are absolutely correct, and this is absurdly obvious on so many levels. The fact that this is no longer the same exact party of Lincoln is sometimes a good thing - starting with the fact that I'm allowed to join at all, despite being a tradition-minded Catholic. To one of the GOP's founding factions, the Know-Nothings, my forebears were a scourge to defend against. This is why the subtitle of this blog specifies the enduring principles of the party, and not rigid adherence to all its founding principles - especially those that time and wisdom has proven to be impractical, stupid, or un-American.

The question is, of course, what values did the Founder hold that we need to perpetuate? I'll leave that for individual study and not belabor the point here.

The wasteful, unconstitutional and treasonous actions of this president and Republican lawmakers are all the evidence anyone needs.

Some actions have indeed been wasteful (spending) and unconstitutional (campaign finance laws). But treasonous? Hardly - unless you have a very broad definition of treason, in which case I might agree with you as long as you would agree to prosecute all cases of treason in order of decreasing severity. This should put you back in my camp, in opposition to the Leftist Democrats, would it not? Shouldn't we reserve this kind of scorch-and-burn rhetoric for those who most truly deserve it? Otherwise, your divisiveness is "giving them aid and comfort".

Well, what have we here? That, sir, is the definition of treason directly referenced in the Constitution.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

The last 5 years have been like watching history in the making.

A statement so profound, Yogi Berra is dying at the thought he didn't come up with it first.

Once these neoconservatives infiltrated the ranks of the republican party, they steered it away from a conservative party that is somehow of, by or for the people.

Last I checked, we still had these things called "elections" that determine how a government is "of" and "by" the people. And when that government is no longer "for" the people, the next election allows a new one to take its place. It's really an ingenious system, you should try studying it sometime so you can understand better how all this works.

Bill Clinton was far more conservative then Bush and the country prospered under his administration.

Oh, man. You should go into comedy with this routine.

First: There's this place in Washington D.C. where a bunch of people sit down and make laws. It's called Congress. Long story short, you might want to learn a little bit about what they do and how they affect what the President does, and vice-versa. The Republican Congress Mr. Clinton had to deal with had a little something to do with your mistaken understanding of the history of the 1990's.

Second: What part of the government Mr. Clinton DID have control over, were butchered, bombed, and bombed again. His appointees frequently rolled over while he took a nap.

Third: Family values

The track record over the last five years is proof that the Republican party is now the party of the rich corporate elite and large corporations.

"Proof"?

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

It is ironic that the Republican party has had the chance to show the world what they are made of since they siezed political power and it is the total opposite of what they claim they are for. Bush & Cheney have successfully pimped the presidency and turned the Senate into an auction house for special interest legislation to the highest bidder.

"Siezed political power" - so now you're one of the "stolen election" nuts, too? For a "conservative" you talk a lot like George Soros.

Bush snubbed the NAACP for years and now all of sudden when his approval ratings are rock bottom it is convenient for him to start talking to the NAACP.

Actually, his approval ratings hit rock bottom a while back, and seem to be coming back up a little. But even if he was looking for ways to bring his approval up, do you really think it makes sense to court the NAACP? How is this "convenient" in any way? Are you suggesting he should or shouldn't be talking to the NAACP? What's your point exactly?

Now that he can no longer hide behind the lie of conservative values and jingoistic patriotism, his filthy reflectin is out in the open. Of course, he still seems to get away with using Christianity as a shield to ward off criticism when his treasonous misdeeds are exposed.

I'd respond to this if I could find some coherent thought behind it. Has your "reflectin" been tippin' the Jack Daniels?

Since the bulk of the religious right wing of this nation is one dimensional in its voting habits and will vote for any charleton who claims to be moral or against abortion, potential republican candidates still have that going for them.

So now you're a secular pro-abortionist? Is this what you think "more conservative" means?

I'm a thousand times more conservative then you can imaging.

I'm fairly certain that someone several times more conservative than me could spell several times better than me as well. You don't seem to qualify.

The only difference between those like me and our current republican lawmakers is the fact that I really am conservative and they are conservative only in word.

So you think politicians are liars? That's not "conservative", that's common sense.

Their actions are very anti-conservative and worse then thier own corrupt presentation of liberalism as they seek to manipulate the impressionable who simply don't realize what that word really means.

So... corrupt presentation of liberalism = anti-conservative? Basic algebra tells me that when you cross out the -1 on each side of that equation, you get liberalism = conservative.

Brilliant. You have a bright future ahead of you as Professor of Logic at Ward Churchill University.