How today's "Conservatives" love big government

From the Libertarian Party Press release about the current CPAC summit going on today

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

February 18, 2010

Contact: Wes Benedict, Executive Director
E-mail: wes.benedict@lp.org
Phone: 202-333-0008 ext. 222

Libertarians criticize CPAC conservatives

WASHINGTON - As the Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC) holds its annual conference, Libertarian Party Executive Director Wes Benedict offered the following statement:
I'm sure we'll hear an awful lot about "limited government" from the mouths of CPAC politicians over the next few days. If I had a nickel every time a conservative said "limited government" and didn't mean it, I'd be a very rich man.

Unlike libertarians, most conservatives simply don't want small government. They want their own version of big government. Of course, they have done a pretty good job of fooling American voters for decades by repeating the phrases "limited government" and "small government" like a hypnotic chant.

It's interesting that conservatives only notice "big government" when it's something their political enemies want. When conservatives want it, apparently it doesn't count.
• If a conservative wants a trillion-dollar foreign war, that doesn't count.
• If a conservative wants a 700-billion-dollar bank bailout, that doesn't count.
• If a conservative wants to spend billions fighting a needless and destructive War on Drugs, that doesn't count.
• If a conservative wants to spend billions building border fences, that doesn't count.
• If a conservative wants to "protect" the huge, unjust, and terribly inefficient Social Security and Medicare programs, that doesn't count.
• If a conservative wants billions in farm subsidies, that doesn't count.

It's truly amazing how many things "don't count."

Conservatives like Rush Limbaugh can't ever be satisfied with enough military spending and foreign wars.

Conservatives like Mitt Romney want to force everyone to buy health insurance.

Conservatives like George W. Bush -- well, his list of supporting big-government programs is almost endless.

Ronald Reagan, often praised as an icon of conservatism, signed massive spending bills that made his the biggest-spending administration (as a percentage of GDP) since World War II.

Some people claim that these big-government supporters aren't "true conservatives." Well, if a person opposes the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, opposes the War on Drugs, opposes border fences, and opposes mandatory Social Security and Medicare, it's hard to believe that anyone would describe that person as a conservative at all. Most people would say that person is a libertarian (or maybe even a liberal).

Obviously, most liberals don't want limited government either. It's just that their support for big government leans toward massive handout and redistribution programs.

The fact is, liberals and conservatives both want gigantic government. Their visions sometimes look different from each other, but both are huge. The only Americans who truly want small government are libertarians.
An article posted at CNS News, linked prominently from the Drudge Report, noted that the Obama administration is on track to beat the Franklin Roosevelt administration in terms of average federal spending as a percentage of GDP. However, the article failed to note that the Reagan Administration already beat the Franklin Roosevelt administration easily. Roosevelt's average was 19.4 percent of GDP, while Reagan's average was 22.3 percent of GDP. (Source: White House OMB data)

Bush thought this guy should be in charge of protecting the Homeland

Bush’s Homeland Security Nominee gets 4 years: (I wonder if he looked into his soul like he did Putin’s)

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/02/18/kerik.sentence/index.html?hpt=T2

Oh yeah, he’s Rudi Giuliani’s BFF

Fox is really good at propoganda

Main Entry: pro·pa·gan·da
Pronunciation: \ˌprä-pə-ˈgan-də, ˌprō-\
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin, from Congregatio de propaganda fide Congregation for propagating the faith, organization established by Pope Gregory XV †1623
Date: 1718
1 capitalized : a congregation of the Roman curia having jurisdiction over missionary territories and related institutions
2 : the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
3 : ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause;"

I guess I always knew that Fox was very effective at getting out their message, but just recently it hit me when I heard the same exact talking points made by two ardent Bushies who've never met and live on other sides of the country and who use Fox as their only information source. The level of hypocrisy was astounding as they complained about Obama doing things that George W. Bush did 3x worse. Complained about "transparency" in the Obama administration...really they did. Yet, 2 years ago they defended Cheney's secrecy about everything AND the wiretapping of every Americans' phone. THEY DEFENDED THAT. They were complaining about Obama NOT undoing the very same things that Bush did that won their praise.

These people are educated, with advanced degrees in fact, but the amount of critical thinking they leave to Hannity and Beck to do for them is amazing. We often ask how could a populace follow lockstep with some of the great atrocities in human history perpetrated by dictators, but what Fox does is little different in terms of how they achieve this suspension of critical thinking. Only the scale is different, but I have no doubt with very little effort they could incite their minions to violence.

They will regurgitate items that Beck/Hannity have made up, that have no basis in fact and when presented with evidence and data it makes no difference...they've accepted the words of their leaders unconditionally. Truth and reality have no place in their minds. They can hold opposite opinions about the same exact behavior depending on who engaged in that behavior. The Fox news treatment of the Christmas underwear bomber was the perfect example...it was the same exact thing as the Shoe Bomber. Yet Fox uses that to prove that Obama is soft on Terror, but the Shoe Bomber was proof that Bush was awesome on terror AND NO ONE who prays at the Alter of Ailes bats an eye. AMAZING. How do you reason with someone like that?