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?

Hero of the far right fringe turns out to be a terrorist

I know the Foxies are unaware of this story b/c Fox is ignoring it, but one of their heroes turns out to be a terrorist.

For years we've been hearing about how terrorists will work to destroy the communications infastructure in AMerica. I just didn't expect this attempt to interrupt the communications of American Government would be at the hands of one of the Right wings most beloved soldiers.

You can be damn sure that if Michael Moore was caught trying to mess around with the telecommunications equipment at the Capital the connection to terrorism and interrupting communication would have been thrown around freely.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35083861/ns/politics-more_politics/

Shameful...

So, much for that radical socialist agenda. His actions in this area seem to indicate he's more like BUSH III than some crazy liberal.

Shameful silence from the media...again

more proof that the media is not only NOT liberal but shameful in it acquiescence to the right wing in its ongoing turning a blind eye to the horrible things that happened under the Bush administration.

http://www.slate.com/id/2241948/

But hey, if 38 people show up at a Glenn Beck incited tea party, you can bet that every network will be there.

Republicans depart further from reality

Both parties have their share of crazies, but as the GOP dwindles in numbers it also seems to dwindle in sanity and rationality. I keep hearing how Palin is some sort of Republican paragon of virtue. Honestly? That’s the best the GOP has to offer? I wonder b/c besides Palin, the only other people I hear from on the right are Hannity, Beck and Limbaugh. Convinced that ACORN stole an election in upstate rural NY where the GOP acted like the Democrats with it’s ridiculous infighting that cost it a seat it’s held for 130 years? Where does that “belief” come from, it’s not from any sort of factual analysis.

All sanity seems to have evaporated. I can see lots of reasons to be against whatever the latest version of the health care bill is, but comparing it to the holocaust? Death Panels? A sane party would discuss reality, not just shout “Socialism” and “Nazism” (at the same time…say wha?).

The part that makes me worry most for your party is that there doesn’t seem anyone from the grown-up rational thinking part of the party is willing to speak up for sanity, reason and real principles. (It’s really hard to take people seriously who claim that providing health care to the uninsured is the end of America and the most egregious affront to civil liberties in the history of America, when those same people shouting this drivel were completely silent, nay full supportive, of a GOP’s adminstration’s policy of tapping the phones of every American and holding Americans without consul indefinitely).

The NY23 debacle shows that the radical fringe of the GOP has no tolerance for any sort of moderation. It just seems that unless some principled and rational members of the Republican party steps up that the GOP will continue it’s march toward ridiculous fringe party. For all the silliness of the Democrats, they have never let the far left vegan/PETA/ecoterrorist/ fringe element run the show. It seems to me that the far right Eric Rudolph wing is in full control of the GOP and I just can’t take you guys seriously any more.

Appears the terrorists have defeated the right anyway

Ridiculous

I really believe that if Barack Obama ran into a burning building and saved the lives of a dozen children there would be an uproar from millions of Americans decrying the horrific Federal intervention into the lives of everyday Americans.

NY 23

It seems to me that the far right overplayed its hand in District 23. Honestly, it’s something you’d expect from the Dems. Obviously the GOP has some internal issues right now. For all the apologists claiming that this didn’t show a civil war in the party, there were twice as many rightwingers talking about how Sozzafava was a “Faux_republican” or Republican in name only. Which seems to make the clear case that the far rightwingers “running” the party these days feel there is no room for a moderate voice…I’m sure that surprises no one. But for all the talk of the big tent of diverse ideas, the very notion of disagreeing to the slightest degree with the far right will result in your ouster.

It’s fine with me, b/c this further proves how far out on the fringe the GOP is these days. And they are leaving millions of “centrist” Republicans with nowhere to go. They’ll either stay home on election day or vote for Democrats or third party candidates (that’s a good thing). In the meantime, the Far Right fringe cost the GOP a seat in the House it hasn’t lost in over 125 years. That takes SOME doin’.

Well played.

rebranding, opening up new markets

I was going to crack wise about how they need the money so they’re stepping up the marketing and branding. The bankruptcies and events that led up to them haven’t really been great for recruitment.

But I read an article and it’s clearly about money because they are going let them keep their own customs/rules. They’ll be Catholic “in donations only”

Pope Benedict XVI approved a church provision that will allow members of the Anglican church -- known as the Episcopal Church in the United States -- to become Catholics while maintaining many of their distinctive spiritual and liturgical traditions, including having married priests.

The Married Priest thing seems like a pretty big deal in terms of changing doctrine.

LeGarrent Blount might be reinstated

First, I have moved into the space where I believe WAYYYY too much was made of this. It is still the talk of college football a month later, while the Michigan guy who punched a guy on the field during the game got no mention. The ranting has diminished, but that first ten days it was talked about non-stop. A guy smacked talked and got punched…OMG the end of sports in America. He acted like a tool afterward indeed; do you know how many baseball fights there have been since this? Did the world end? Did a baseball player even get suspended for acting crazy and having to be restrained? NOPE.

Right now Blount’s punishment is the same one Dante Stallworth got from his league. That seems a bit out of whack to me.

Frankly I don’t care if he comes back or not although I’m partial to the notion that UO should stick to their punishment. He’s still got a future in the NFL if he keeps his act together. If he sits out this year and does well in the NFL, the university did the right thing. If they re-instate him and he does something dumb in the next couple of years and/or flames out in the NFL the University looks bad. I think letting him practice and go to school for free is a good compromise.

That's impossible, this doesn't happen in America...

Yes, I’m an old man and I have a rheumatologist, but I was on their website today and this is what it says:

Team Structure of Care at AARAA chronic shortage of rheumatologists exists
throughout the US. In most practices, waiting times for a new patient to
see a rheumatologist is 2 to 6 months, and many rheumatologists struggle to meet
the needs for follow-up care of existing patients. The shortage is projected to
worsen over the next 20 years.

How can this be? Americans don’t wait for Medical Care, that only happens in Communist dictatorships like Canada and France. That's what Republicans keep telling me.

BloodPhones?

Sound and Fury and Complete Bullshit

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090720/ap_on_go_ot/us_health_care_overhaul

I absolutely love the RNC and GOP tactic of just screaming “Socialism” at every thing they don’t like, even though they seem to love Stalinist moves like wiretapping every American without a warrant and arresting people and locking them up with judicial review. But again that was then this is now (Like how somehow it’s awesome when Sam Alito talks about how his judicial decisions are formulated against growing up poor and Italian, but 2 years later if you’re Hispanic it’s somehow a crime…Why has no one mentioned Alito’s bias towards Italian-Americans in Ricci? Why? Double standard? Racism? Or just plain politics?...speaking of Ricci I am fascinated how this has become “her” decision in the ignorant Right-leaning media that America lives under. A decision that was decided in trial and her court unanimously upheld (meaning they found no errors in their reaching their decision), then 4 Supreme Court Justices agreed with her court’s decision. Somehow b/c of the way one SC Justice voted she’s now some idiot or has a bias. Shameful)

But that is not my major problem with this “discussion” on health care as overly simplistic as they make it out to be. It’s this fallacy that today in America “you and your doctor” are the only people who decide your care. What a bunch of crap. There is already someone in between you and your doctor and that is a profit motivated bureaucrat in some office in Hartford. I’m not saying that I want a government bureaucrat making medical decisions, but if I’m going to have someone in the middle (and we ALL do today) I guess I would rather have the person who doesn’t have a financial incentive to deny me care.

I have a pretty good plan here, but numerous times I’ve had to jump through ridiculous bureaucratic hoops to get care. I’ve had prescriptions written by MY DOCTOR refused by my health plan and told to try something else, not a generic version for which I have no problem, with but a different drug altogether. So, let’s stop this false dichotomy of today it’s “Me and my doctor” vs tomorrow it’s “Me and the government”. Because unless you’re paying for your healthcare out of your own pocket you’ve already got someone with a financial incentive to minimize your care in between you and your doctor.

All socialism is created equal, just some is more equal than others.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/21/house.dealerships.closures/index.html

Panel member Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, said his concern goes further than
that.

"Every day I guess I get a little more concerned about what the
administration is doing in regard to the GM and Chrysler bankruptcies. It seems
to me that literally the administration is declaring war on capitalism," Smith
said.

So, this stalwart of Capitalism is going to use CONGRESS to re-open unneeded dealerships that the auto companies decided should be closed. I guess they’re all for capitalism and the free market when it happens to someone else (say Michigan), but not in my backyard. Like many senators tried to do with the funding of 7 more F22s that the military doesn’t want or need, fortunately, most took their head out on that one and common sense prevailed. But hey if a plane is made in 44 different states it’s almost impossible to stop making more even if the Military doesn’t want or need them. Everyone is for capitalism and common sense unless it hurts their chances for re-election….IDIOTS ALL. To paraphrase Orwell. All socialism is created equal, just some is more equal than others.

So obvious

Robinson's comment here is so engrained that I never even really thought about it, but it is totally how politicians (especially white male Republicans) view the world:

Reaction to the Reaction

I'm not shedding a tear today for Michael Jackson. Firstly, I was never a fan of his. I certainly grew up during his heyday, but when I was younger I was listening to Led Zeppelin, the Beatles, the Stones and the like. Although, there was a period of time when it seemed like you had to pick Michael or Prince, I went with Prince. Not so much b/c I thought he was a musical genius when I was 16 years (although clearly he is), but b/c he was not Michael Jackson. I watched "Thriller" on MTV, what choice did I have, it was on a loop, but I attended Prince's Purple Rain concert, and never bought a MJ album or CD. Prince was the "freak" back then, but in later years that turned around didn't it?

The tragedy for me, is that a 50 year old man died why before he should have. I feel for his friends and family as I would with any stranger who dies at such a young age.

Much like when Princess Diana died, or Kurt Cobain I really don't get how people lose their minds over someone they've never met. I often look at these people and wonder if they carry on in such a way when their grandmother died, I wonder how much of the outward grief is for public consumption and a sense of commandeer with other mourners (Look at me, I'm like you, we are emotionally ravaged by the death of a guy I didn't know and never met). It all seems like so much theater to me, and it's not just Jackson fans, it's whenever something like this happens. I wonder how much of this is mourning the loss of their youth instead of a guy they didn't know. What is missing in their lives that causes them to so closely "identify" with a stranger?

I know that some of his work was good, maybe great. "Off the wall", "Thriller" and some of "Bad" are great. Some great songs, but he wasn't a revolutionary, maybe not even an evolutionary artist. Sorry. He was a great entertainer and dancer. I still remember the day after he Moonwalked on National TV, it was the talk of my suburban/rural central New York school the next day. It was an event, but it wasn't a musical revelation...it was a dance move. I don't even know the song he was singing when he did it.

His contributions to Music Video are undeniable. He made MTV in the 80's, but you have to wonder how lasting that contribution to the arts is when you consider that MTV and VH1 don't even play music videos any longer. The form is all but dead. Is "Thriller" a great song without the video? Is "bad"? No doubt he had other great songs ("PYT", "Wanna be startin' somethin'"), but he should be remembered for his contributions to Videos which is huge, where his contributions to music are less.

I read poll yesterday where the question asked was Jackson the "greatest pop star of all time". Besides being a flawed survey geared toward people with no sense of history, the other choices were The Beatles or Madonna. I would have voted for the Beatles, but what about Sinatra or Louie Armstrong or a host of others with longer and more influential careers? Even if you go for straight Pop Star cred, Madonna's career as a relevant artist is longer than Jackson's as he has turned into a Late Night TV joke and resided there for the past 15 or 20 years. He's tabloid fodder, not even an entertainer any more.

He sold more albums than anyone else, no doubt. He was a music sales machine, but sales/revenue has never been the standard for artistry. Otherwise Brittney Spears would be one of the greatest "musicians/artists" ever. Michael didn't invent Pop or even expand the genre very much. His whole deal is just a continuation of the work of James Brown and others who came before. James Brown invented genres of music, while being the consummate entertainer. Michael entertained, but simply followed the path Brown set for him and others.

Jackson was a man so seemingly ashamed of his blackness that he did everything he could to radically alter his appearance turning himself in a grotesque caricature. While Brown was singing "I"m black and I'm proud" Jackson spent untold monies on erasing the image of that kid who sang in the Jackson Five.

Sitting her today with ESPN on, I keep hearing about how magnificent he was. First, the strained effort to make this into a sports story is just annoying and second...it appears everyone has forgotten about the past 15 years of his life. Like it didn't happen.

This is my memory of Michael. Outside the Moonwalk and the videos, my thoughts are most about weirdness. Bubbles, John Merrick's bones, charges of molestation, Emmanuel Lewis, Neverland Ranch, buying the Beatles catalog and selling the songs for commercials, huge amounts of debt, dancing on Limo roofs in his pajamas and of course the mutilation of his face. This is the legacy he left. You can't ignore the charges against him and even his own creepy answers about sleeping with little boys. Dancing to a funky beat doesn't absolve him of that, despite everyone seemingly forgetting that in the past 24 hours.

Look, I'm sorry he's died. I don't hate the guy, but I always thought he was overrated and the Canonization of the man I've seen for the past 24 hours is disturbing. The post is about the reaction to his death. He was a great entertainer, he didn't change music but you can't ignore all the other things just b/c he's gone now.

All that said...RIP Mr. Jackson

Democracy come from the people...

Things are going well in Iran for Democracy. People are rising up, that is how DEMOCRACY comes to power. If Iraq proved nothing else, it proved that you can't force democracy upon a nation with the guns of another country. Freedom and democracy come form the people and the PEOPLE are doing the rising up in Iran. Let the Iranians focus on changing there government, that is what they are doing. The current Iranina government would LOVE nothing more than for America to get involved so that they can turn the populace against an outside enemy (fortunately, the "Bomb Iran" faction of the GOP didn't get their way, b/c if they had this would not be happening). Don't believe me? Ask yourself, after America was attacked on 9/11 did you worry about petty partisan bickering ? No, you didn't. You focused on the common enemy.

If America tries to interfere here, they create the common enemy that all dictators need to keep power. America should keep it's collective mouth shut and the the PEOPLE of Iran determine their future. Iran has a growing young secular and westernized population, theocracy was not going to last forever and let's hope the time has come for moderate voices in Iran to carry the day

Let's hope he overplayed his hand with stealing the election

It seems that Iran has a large part of the population willing to take to the streets and challenge the Islamist fanaticism the controls many countries in the region. As I've told my wacked out Bushie "friends" that attacking iran is exactly what the government wants b/c it would turn sympathy toward the government against a common Western enemy. I strongly believe that iranians are capable of taking their country back from the zealots. They are a secular population who doesn't want to live under the yoke of religous tyranny...in time Iran's young people will take the steps themselves to rid the country of the zealots.

My hope is that the government has gone too far this time for the citizens of Iran.