PDA

View Full Version : Purity tests and the conservative movement



MountainMan
02-07-2012, 12:48 AM
What defines a conservative today? I have been posting on this board now for the better half of the last seven to eight years. My views for the most part have not changed. Those that know my posts know I can argue for the conservative movement with the best of them. However, over the last two years, I've been referred to as a RINO and as a moderate. WTF?????

Being a conservative twenty years ago meant that you believed in the three tenants which were a strong national defense, socially conservative with regards to the human life issue and a lower tax rate to go along with lower spending. However, something changed. Im not sure when it happened or how but some people started claiming to be real, true conservatives in the "purest" sense of the term. This is a problem. Personally, I have never been one for purity tests. Being "conservative" has different meanings to different people around the country. Those of us who grew up in small to medium towns in the west and midwest have a different view of what it means to be conservative than someone from the south or east coast. We all consider ourselves conservative but with slightly different meanings.

Can a purity test cloud someones judgement? Hell yes. All you have to do is look at the race Christine O'Donnell ran for the senate in Delaware. The woman was dumb as a box of rocks and crooked too considering she paid for her personal rent out of campaign donations. Her opponent in the primary was Mike Castle. Was he a republican? Yes he was. Was he conservative? Thats the question that needs answering. Mike Castle was a moderate to liberal when it came to social issues. However, he was strong for national defense and strong when it came to spending and taxes. Unfortunately, we had too many people on our side think that they were doing the movement good by putting up someone who claimed to be a "pure" conservative. We heard phrases like "She will move the ball forward for the movement" and "My conscious will be clear because I know I voted for the true conservative". Well goody for you. Your conscious gave us a leftwing turd who we will never get out of there. Oh, and Mike Castle vowed to lead the fight to repeal Obamacare. At least your conscious is clean.

We also have conservatives here on this board claim to carry the mantle of Ronald Regan. However, one of Regan's favorite beliefs was that someone who agrees with me seventy percent of the time is not my enemy. How many of you actually think Reagan would have endorsed O'Donnell over Steele. Reagan was a pragmatist and knew you could only advance the movement forward by putting in people that could win.

Reagan wouldn't have stood for purity tests and he sure wouldn't have called people RINO's. We stand a good chance of throwing Obama out if we stand together. It is ok to criticize one persons policy stance. It does us no good marginalizing our own candidates. Reagan wouldn't have done it and neither should we.

Leave the purity tests to democrats.

Rockntractor
02-07-2012, 01:00 AM
You will get your feelings hurt, this is the internet you can be whatever you like, it doesn't matter.
Truck on ultimate conservative!:D

MountainMan
02-07-2012, 01:02 AM
You will get your feelings hurt, this is the internet you can be whatever you like, it doesn't matter.
Truck on ultimate conservative!:D

Tis the interwebs.. unlike those over at DU, nothing posted here will hurt my feelings. However, my feelings will be hurt if Obama gets reelected because we have too many people on our side trying to make sure they have tested the conservative DNA to the point of irrelevance.

Rockntractor
02-07-2012, 01:08 AM
Tis the interwebs.. unlike those over at DU, nothing posted here will hurt my feelings. However, my feelings will be hurt if Obama gets reelected because we have too many people on our side trying to make sure they have tested the conservative DNA to the point of irrelevance.

Of course it will be someone else,s fault always is .

MountainMan
02-07-2012, 01:14 AM
Of course it will be someone else,s fault always is .Where is Linda when you need a grammatical correction?

I know, it is her fault.

Rockntractor
02-07-2012, 01:16 AM
Where is Linda when you need a grammatical correction?

I know, it is her fault.

That's a wrong key , not bad grammar!:D

Rockntractor
02-07-2012, 01:19 AM
Where are you at right now, Starbucks, Barns & Noble, Whole Foods?
Just curious.:confused:

MountainMan
02-07-2012, 01:20 AM
Where are you at right now, Starbucks, Barns & Noble, Whole Foods?
Just curious.:confused:
At home, on the toilet with my Kindle fire. Why do you ask? :Flag2:

Rockntractor
02-07-2012, 01:23 AM
At home, on the toilet with my Kindle fire. Why do you ask? :Flag2:

Hope everything comes out all right!:eek:

MountainMan
02-07-2012, 01:33 AM
Hope everything comes out all right!:eek:

So far so good...I've been flipping tires.

Rockntractor
02-07-2012, 01:40 AM
So far so good...I've been flipping tires.

:rotfl:

txradioguy
02-07-2012, 03:14 AM
Tis the interwebs.. unlike those over at DU, nothing posted here will hurt my feelings. However, my feelings will be hurt if Obama gets reelected because we have too many people on our side trying to make sure they have tested the conservative DNA to the point of irrelevance.

Careful MM...there's a few here that are quite proud of their Purity Tests and holding themselves as the only "true conservatives" on CU.

You'll hurt the little Bircher's feelings.

fettpett
02-07-2012, 09:07 AM
I don't have an issue with anyone being "not pure" as I have views that aren't considered "pure" by some here, what a persons personal views may be on a subject doesn't mean that is always going to be how they govern. One such issue is abortion, while they may personally not have a problem with it, they wont sign laws into place that promote it or fund it.

How they govern is much more important than personal views. On the flip side, there are many who say one thing then govern the exact opposite then try and gloss it over.

txradioguy
02-07-2012, 12:27 PM
I don't have an issue with anyone being "not pure" as I have views that aren't considered "pure" by some here, what a persons personal views may be on a subject doesn't mean that is always going to be how they govern. One such issue is abortion, while they may personally not have a problem with it, they wont sign laws into place that promote it or fund it.

How they govern is much more important than personal views. On the flip side, there are many who say one thing then govern the exact opposite then try and gloss it over.


:rolleyes:

Rockntractor
02-07-2012, 01:06 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEbzM2FUP9s

fettpett
02-07-2012, 02:14 PM
:rolleyes:

what? Not saying personal views aren't important, just it's how they actually Govern and what laws they vote for and/or sign into law.

GWB - talked a good game, but passed some of the biggest anti-liberty bills and big spender (NCLB, Campaign Finance "reform", etc)

Jefferson - opposed a lot of the Federalist ideas but used them when it suited him, Louisiana Purchase

Clinton - big lefty, pushed to get a lot of liberal ideas passed, but always went with the polls.

It's not always a bad thing, but it's what they do that is a bigger indicator than what they say