Comments on: Updated: Republicans’ Incoherent Mea Culpa

By: Myron Pauli

Myron Pauli — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 17:13:24 +0000

Can anyone define what “conservatism” consists of other than a jobs program for a group of special interests clustered around the Republican party?

By: socalserf

socalserf — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 07:45:10 +0000

So the Republicans are dead?
Good!
The terminal cancer started along time ago when they gave up their classic liberal principles.
They have been right wing socalist for decades.

By: Ron Remo'te

Ron Remo'te — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 15:26:27 +0000

O’Rourk used to be biting and clever. Now he’s jus biting.

By: EN

EN — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 14:46:19 +0000

“[You are generally right that the Democrats are not blame free; but the Republicans have been in power. They initiated the policies.–IM]”

The Dems also brought this on by choosing elective wars in Kosovo and Bosnia, two places that we had no business being. This was the precedent for our interventions all over the planet.

Republicans, at one time the party of non-intervention, spend their days dreaming of new wars and emptying the treasury. They can’t die fast enough for my taste.

By: Hans Engelbrecht

Hans Engelbrecht — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 06:25:30 +0000

I would like to know why the Republicans (in particular Bush) are being singled out as warmongers. It seems to have been a major factor in the election. Now, before I get slated for supporting wars let me state clearly - I don't. All I want to know is why Republicans are singled out. Why not Democrats as well. Before the US invaded Iraq, was it not put to vote? Did the Democrats vote against the war? What would say Clinton have done post 9/11? Did Clinton not support the invasion. Admittedly I only took an interest in US politics fairly recently, so if I got it all wrong please educate me. [You are generally right that the Democrats are not blame free; but the Republicans have been in power. They initiated the policies.--IM]

By: Tom M

Tom M — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 16:31:37 +0000

It seems that O’Rourke would choose to destroy the nation of the United States by illegal and legal third world immigration, just to have cheap lawn care and fast food; I suppose that is how cheap he and his ilk values the nation of the United States of America, and how highly he and his ilk value the destruction of the United States, for the motives of the New World Order totalitarian One World Government of crooks and thieves.

By: Myron Pauli

Myron Pauli — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 15:04:16 +0000

Reagan wanted to fight commies overseas and socialism at home but chose to do the former while neglecting the latter. P. J.’s humorous essay is correct that the Republicans never took on the New Deal and just proposed more of the same (Leave No Child, Prescription Drug, Agribusiness…). He is also correct about fiscal responsibility – but McCain/Palin proposed more wars, more spending, and more tax cuts. Basically, the Republicans and P.J. have NO real philosophy beyond grabbing power. P.J. objects to the Southern Christians that dominate the G.O.P. (they were Democrats 50 years ago) but that is basically the “core” and it is now their party. I do not see any movement outside of Ron Paul to return to any basic principles. Republicans will always try to win by being Democrat-lite on immigration and welfare and out warmongering them on foreign policy. They prefer losing by mimicry (and enhancing the Warfare-Welfare state with some rhetorical meat thrown to religious traditionalists) rather than to risk losing by having a coherent set of principles involving limited government, fiscal responsibility, and self-reliance. {{You are correct about P.J.’s inconsistencies but modern “conservatism” US or UK style is just a mass of inconsistencies}}

By: pk

pk — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 12:26:32 +0000

Unfortunately, The Weekly Standard is a neoconservative publication.