The Metamorphosis of the Conservative Movement

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by wkmac, May 20, 2008.

  1. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

  2. av8torntn

    av8torntn Well-Known Member

    This is a very strange article. The author claims the Bush regime is tearing down the Constitution by using wiretaps on suspected terrorist phone call from overseas to the US. He ignores the Clinton regime using the FBI to gather information on political opponents. He kind of comes across as falling in the same trap he is accusing others of.
  3. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    Oh yeah, that's an excellent point. The Clinton adminstration did lots of damage and you know what else, I found...............hey,what a minute! Let's see the title of article was "Metamorphosis of the Conservative Movement" and it was about how the conservative side of the isle has/had been changed.

    OK, I'm confused now, could you show me again when and where Clinton ever claimed to be a conservative or a part of the conservative movement which claims to hold constitutional principles and uphold original intent?

    Help a brother out there AV!
  4. av8torntn

    av8torntn Well-Known Member

    When I read the article it seemed to me that he was trying to say that because there was no conservative movement Government was moving away from the Constitution. I think they have been doing that for quite some time now. You can even look at the administration he was in and find some fault. He tried to lay the blame solely on Bush as the first Republican president that fought a war outside the boundary of the Constitution. Give me a break. I am sure that I probably read to much in to it but this guy comes across to me as a first class nut. You can basically take the general points he makes about the Bush regime and apply it to any regime.

    "In theory conservatives adore the Constitution and seek to protect it."

    In theory is this not true of anyone who seeks to be President to congressman or Senator?

    "Conservatives have confused loyalty to the country with loyalty to Bush."

    Ok if I am conservative I have no loyalty to the expansion of the Dept. of Education or prescription drugs for seniors. I would say that Democrats oppose these things they would normally support just because Bush proposed them? Bush made both of these promises when he ran. How many times in the last two weeks have we had to listen to the two Democratic candidates talk about how much they want to expand these two programs? It is every time they speak in public. I really think this quote would apply more to liberals being against the President than Conservatives having loyalty to him.

    I really think that his point that because there is no conservative movement that the Federal Government is moving away from the Constitution just is not very valid. If his point was that the conservative movement failed to protect the constitution then I would agree but that is not what I got from the article. It just seemed as a shot at one presidency.

    So your question about where and when Clinton was a conservative there are many that claim this to be the peak of the modern conservative movement with the Republican controlled Congress that is the only reason I brought up the Clinton regime. They could not even stop them from many abuses of power. He wants the readers to believe that conservatives have before Bush protected the Constitution. I also think it is foolish to blame any one branch of government or any one party or any one movement in the party for the abuses of our Government. The power is always in our hands. There are separation of powers for a reason. I know you do not agree with that.

    Anyhow that was just my take on it I should probably read it again and am taking by your response that I must have misread it which would not be uncommon.