🚀 go-pugleaf

Peter H. Proctor wrote:

> On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 15:47:39 GMT, Jonathan Ball
> <jonball@whitehouse.not> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Peter H. Proctor wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 11:20:00 GMT, KStahl <ktsahl@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>>>This whole thing has shown the moral bankruptcy of the conservative
>>>>movement. 
> 
> 
>>> No,  just the bible-thumper cultural conservatives
>>
>>There really isn't any other kind these days.
> 
> 
> Sure there are.    There are the Neocons,  basically warmed-over
> Trotskyists.   They used to be liberal democrats.

They also do not control the Republican party.  The 
buybull-thumpin' social conservatives control the 
party, and they hate the neo-cons almost as much as 
they hate Adkins's "Liberals".  They're willing to let 
the neo-cons handle foreign affairs, basically because:

1.  the majority conservatives don't know fuck-all
     about foreign affairs, except that they hate all
     foreigners.

2.  the neo-cons can put a cute intellectual veneer on
     their all-purpose response of war; the majority
     conservatives like slick liars, as long as they're
     THEIR slick liars.

> But there are a
> lot of Arnold types,  Socially-liberal (really, libertarian) fun guys
> but economically-conservative.

No, there are not *a lot* of them.  There are 
relatively few of them, and they defintely do not 
control the Republican party apparatus.  Arnold is a 
real outlier.  If the libertarians ran the Californian 
Republican party, this wouldn't be a one-party state 
with ZERO sitting statewide elected officials from the 
Republican party (Arnold not having taken office yet).

The hard-ass dumb-shit conservatives, with Gray Davis's 
money, kept a great moderate Republican, Richard 
Riordan, from winning the gubernatorial election.

> The gummit has no more right to
> intefere with your private life that it does with your economic one.

Tell that to Bill Bennett and Pat Robertson.

> 
> 
>>>--- Rush,
>>>Willian Bennet with his gambling habit,  not to mention assorted TV
>>>preachers,  etc..
>>
>>This IS the face of contemporary conservatism.
> 
> 
>        Richard Nixon had to make a devil's deal with the social
> conservatives to get elected in '68.   A lot of these people your
> average Republican would not have let in the house,  though they do
> make great huntin' and drinkin' buddies<G>.   
> 
>       The Repubs have had to throw them the occasional bone ever
> since.   The social conservatives  _real_ issue is abortion.

And prayer in school, and drugs, and "dirty" books, and...

> But if
> the Repubs give them that, then they alienate the "suburban mom"
> swing vote.

Ergo, no statewide elected Republicans in California, 
until the other week.

> So the Repugs make do with platitudes and the War on
> Drugs while screwing the "Reagan Democrats" economically.  Serves 'em
> right..
> 
> Dr P
>