ARE YOU NEW HERE? NOT LOGGED IN? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT AND LOGIN TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW
Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification window. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!
P.J. O'Rourke, who says he became a conservative on the birth of his first child--hint, hint, Apple Strudel(Ah, the naive ideas we held when we were young.)--certainly is an entertaining writer. For example, there's this:
Our impeachment of President Clinton was another example of placing the wrong political emphasis on personal matters. We impeached Clinton for lying to the government. To our surprise the electorate gave us cold comfort. Lying to the government: It's called April 15th. And we accused Clinton of lying about sex, which all men spend their lives doing, starting at 15 bragging about things we haven't done yet, then on to fibbing about things we are doing, and winding up with prevarications about things we no longer can do.
Conservatives' 28-year opportunity to fix the moral and practical boundaries of government is gone, says O'Rourke. I can't disagree.
I put the blame for this in part on Ronald Reagan leaving office with a very high approval rating, 86 or 88 percent, and not using some of this capital on making social security something one owns and can pass on to one's descendants. I got this from Charles Krauthammer. Yes, the third rail and all that, but making it truly an owned asset for people rather than a "pay as you go" scheme that is clearly unsustainable and violates the tenants of private property: if one dies early--and it can be racial, too, as black men have a shorter lifespan--their accrued money doesn't go to help the spouse and kids. What's that about?
That would have potentially been a paradigm shift in favor of the Ownership Society
* patients have control of [decisions on] their personal health care,
* parents control [i.e. have power over] their children's education, and
* workers control [i.e. have some responsibility for the investment of, or explicit property rights in] their retirement savings.
that George Bush did so little to further when we were on the brink of something profoundly libertarian.
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!
Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.
NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 98
O'Rourke is a valid voice for the conservatives. I'm not saying I agree with everything he says, but he makes great observations based on reality and history. He brings facts to debate and has a grasp of his political philosophy.
Too bad nobody in the party is smart enough to listen to him.
Instead they flock to Limbaugh and Glen Beck. They hear the call of 'visionaries' like Malkin and Dr. Laura....
P.J. O'Rourke, who says he became a conservative on the birth of his first child--hint, hint, Apple Strudel
That will never happen.
Originally Posted by State
(Ah, the naive ideas we held when we were young.)
You can't lazily dismiss an ideology you disagree with as naive and be taken seriously at the same time.
Originally Posted by State
That would have potentially been a paradigm shift in favor of the Ownership Society that George Bush did so little to further when we were on the brink of something profoundly libertarian.
The people don't like the ownership society since it quickly leaves them out in the cold as the few accumulate more and more. That's why you lost your window (if in fact you have). Go back and study your history and you'll find that laissez faire capitalism and its attendant ownership society in the 19th and early 20th century is what gave rise to the popularity of communism in the early half of the last century and the implementation of progressive policies following world war 2, thus leading to the golden age of the middle class.
That said, of course going after Clinton for almost nothing was a mistake, but not for the reasons you think. It was a mistake because that and the Supreme Court were pretty much the things that lead to the crystallization of conservative values in the form of W getting elected and him not having the sense to at least try and pretend like he wasn't constantly screwing the people over. Basically you guys revealed too much and people caught on to the act.