Conservative leaders release “Mount Vernon statement”
posted at 12:41 pm on February 17, 2010 by Allahpundit
Normally, I don’t think grassroots conservatives would have a problem with influential righties presenting an organizing manifesto on their behalf. That’s how the continental Congress worked, after all, and this is very clearly styled as a sort of modern analog to the country’s founding. But at a moment when the deliberately leaderless tea party movement is drafting its own platform — which, it should be noted, is a lot more concrete than this document is — I wonder how much attention rank-and-file cons will pay to it.
Serious question: What is this supposed to accomplish?
A Constitutional conservatism based on first principles provides the framework for a consistent and meaningful policy agenda.
* It applies the principle of limited government based on the rule of law to every proposal.
* It honors the central place of individual liberty in American politics and life.
* It encourages free enterprise, the individual entrepreneur, and economic reforms grounded in market solutions.
* It supports America’s national interest in advancing freedom and opposing tyranny in the world and prudently considers what we can and should do to that end.
* It informs conservatism’s firm defense of family, neighborhood, community, and faith.
The idea, I guess, is that Republican voters can wave this in the faces of wayward congressmen, but the principles here are so broad as to be almost meaningless. Let’s say Paul Ryan proposes a small tax increase as part of a larger plan to pay down the national debt. Does that violate the principles of limited government and market solutions, or is it actually a step towards the greater conservative good of solvency and fiscal responsibility? What about the principle of “opposing tyranny” through “prudent” means? Paulnuts oppose tyranny too (they’re libertarians, after all), but their definition of prudence is so dramatically different from the neoconservative definition as to be unbridgeable. And what about, say, waterboarding? Bob Barr, for instance, would insist that that has no place in any sort of constitutional regime. How much closer does this get us to resolving that dispute?
I’m not even going to touch the part about defending faith. (Defending the right to have faith would have been much better.) Exit question: Read David Frum’s response to the manifesto. Isn’t he right, just this one time?
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
Looks like a lot of People need to grow a pair…. talk about a document that says “I stand for Absolutely Nothing but am looking for a sorry ass way to save my job.” And to do it at George Washington’s Home. Let me sum it up for them in 2 words
“Fuck em”.
I hope my profanity doesn’t get my comment privileges banned but that’s my stand on my tiny piece of America that hasn’t been taken away by these thugs.
To paraphrase the Ass clown n chief…. Just words… Just words
roflmao
donabernathy on February 17, 2010 at 2:09 PM
If this is the best that all the passion of the Tea Parties can produce, they’re doomed to a Democrat-ish failure even if Jugears is ousted.
Dark-Star on February 17, 2010 at 2:10 PM
Define recently. In the 90s it was Democrats losing elections. Of course, they still supported national defense then, and so were able to be reelected now. But who decided that just because the media poisoned the Bush administration’s record and Obama got elected because of that, that Americans wanted a Marxist government, running everything in support of more government, not less? You folks obviously didn’t take the right lessons from the election. We wanted change of leadership, not change of policies.
So you think 8 million adults out of 200 million Americans have the right to tell everyone else what to do and how to do it, even when they are led by propaganda to vote against their best interests, and were lied to by the Liar in Chief who told them whatever they wanted to hear to get elected?
Whoever said winning an election means you can run roughshod over the rights and livelihoods of all the other people in the country?
Only in your reality does winning an election mean “long Live the King”
Subsunk
Subsunk on February 17, 2010 at 2:12 PM
I took this statement as the middle of the right conservatives coming together in common cause to lay some groundwork. This wasn’t designed as a means of enlisting the support of Paulnuts or disaffected Democrats. Both factions would require promises or assurances to sign on to anything that smacks of mainstream conservatism and this group are not the ones that can make those kinds of deals.
highhopes on February 17, 2010 at 2:16 PM
Only in your bizarro world does it matter to conservatives what gays do in their own bedrooms. If you want them to live together or marry and the state they live in says OK, most of us are not going to go throwing stones at them. It is your reality challenged side which insists on “special” rights for them, not ours. Live and let live is our mantra. Just keep the federal government OUT of the business of telling us, and gays, what we can and cannot do in our own personal lives and with our own tax money.
You are more prejudiced than Muslims and radical Christian fundamentalists could ever be.
Subsunk
Subsunk on February 17, 2010 at 2:17 PM
Why did the people in the 1910′s make things so hard on themeselves by creating the 18th amendment? Would it not have been easier to cite the Commerce Clause and ban alcohol?
WashJeff on February 17, 2010 at 2:17 PM
That’s completely true: Obama was the first Democrat Presidential candidate in thirty years to get more than 50% of the vote. That is indeed “significant,” but only in that it is unusual.
Of course it is most definitely NOT significant in the sense that it establishes an ongoing trend. (On the other hand, that sort of “logic” would explain an awful lot about how Global Warming Theology came about.)
logis on February 17, 2010 at 2:20 PM
I agree with most of what is said in this Mount Vernon statement, but will not sign it because the United State should not get involved with wars, and conflicts of other countries.
-
“It supports America’s national interest in advancing freedom and opposing tyranny in the world and prudently considers what we can and should do to that end.”
-
Washington himself would appose such nonsense, and said so in his farewell address! We ARE NOT to worlds police!
Confederate on February 17, 2010 at 2:21 PM
–The GOP lost the House and Senate in the early-mid 2000s. In 2004, Bush won by 3 million. In 2000, Gore won by about 500,000. In 1996, Clinton won by 8 million. In 1992, Clinton won by about 5 million (Perot was also on the ballot). So that’s recently.
We have about 280 million people in the US. The 8 million is not the people that voted for Obama. It’s the number of people that Obama won by. I didn’t vote for Obama. And no one says that any party/person always wins in politics. There’s a natural correction factor that goes on.
Jimbo3 on February 17, 2010 at 2:21 PM
And that goes for links to the NYT, WaPo, HuffPo, et. al. I don’t know why you even bother to post them. If you want to make a point about their content, write a post! That’s what Michelle and, soon, Salem is paying you for! Why send traffic to these orgs? Their content is predictable and worthless. We don’t care what they are saying about anything!
“Read David Frum”! Ha! “Isn’t he right?” Just this once? Is Frum paying you by the click, AP? Just what are your political convictions, AP? Do you have any? I think your new paymasters should know.
netherman79 on February 17, 2010 at 2:21 PM
Welcome back, AP. Hope this Salem thing works out for you all.
Jaibones on February 17, 2010 at 2:21 PM
–It wasn’t until after FDR that the Supreme Court reinterpreted the Commerce Clause.
Jimbo3 on February 17, 2010 at 2:23 PM
No offense towards George Washington but why not do this at the Lincoln Memorial? I don’t know what the Whigs believed in but at least Lincoln was a Republican. It’s high-time the party took him back since the Democrats seem to sweep his party affiliation under the rug and claim him as one of themselves.
slug on February 17, 2010 at 2:23 PM
this is nothing but a typical politcal document made by typical politicans
They still are NOt listening.
We want REAL CHANGE. We want government out of our lifes. We want to be able to raise our families how we see fit. We want the gov to worry about our borders and our way of life and protect and serve not rule.
unseen on February 17, 2010 at 2:24 PM
–I was responding to high hopes about this (see below). You might want to ask him again why this new document is so wonderful, because I sure don’t see its value.
“Gay rights are another matter because gays already have all the rights of every other citizen. What you are talking about is legitimizing and legalizing gay marriage. For only some states to decide (or not) to recognize same-sex relationships as marriage is unworkable unless marriage in one state is null and void elsewhere. What happens when Adam and Bruce move to a straight state and decide to get “divorced?”
highhopes on February 17, 2010 at 1:41 PM”
Jimbo3 on February 17, 2010 at 2:25 PM
Exactly.
Jaibones on February 17, 2010 at 2:26 PM
I’m surprised Newt didn’t find a way to glom onto this statement.
Speedwagon82 on February 17, 2010 at 2:27 PM
Then I would suggest this web site for you.
http://www/1800abcdefg.com
mwdiver on February 17, 2010 at 2:27 PM
Nope. Try again.
The proper use of the Commerce Clause is to keep states from discriminating against other states… not regulating the commerce of individuals/businesses that reside in those states. For example, one state cannot enact a tariff against the goods from another state, nor restrict access to other states (navigation).
How does state-to-state discrimination, or navigation rights apply to healthcare? Are you implying that the healthcare bill is a funeral barge navigating the waters of BS flowing from the mouths of politicians? While I believe they are generating a river of BS, I do not think river navigation rights apply here…
dominigan on February 17, 2010 at 2:28 PM
What’s this supposed to accomplish, front group for RINOs? WARNING, WARNING — Seems unusually vague to me.
Why not just swear to uphold the Constitution, and with a twist, mean it.
tarpon on February 17, 2010 at 2:31 PM
–”Among” the several states has been interpreted to mean “affecting in any significant manner” the several states.
Jimbo3 on February 17, 2010 at 2:31 PM
Actually, if you care to do the research, you will find out that it is because the majority of American people found out what the loons in the Democrat party will do to the country if they have unfettered power.
mwdiver on February 17, 2010 at 2:31 PM
–The link doesn’t work for me. Can you cut and paste some of it? Thanks.
Jimbo3 on February 17, 2010 at 2:32 PM
–Or if the GOP has unfettered power like it did in the early 2000s.
Jimbo3 on February 17, 2010 at 2:33 PM
Predictable fundamentalist claptrap from highhopes. Save the sanctimonious and pompous BS for your Bible study group. Your constant whining and victimization nonsense has worn thin.
dakine on February 17, 2010 at 2:35 PM
Jimbo3 subscribes, and I think supports, FDR’s and the Supreme Court’s reintepretation of the Commerce Clause where if it can be bought and sold, the federal government can regulate it.
While I hate drugs (i.e., Weed, Cocaine, etc.), cases involving those drugs, specifcally weed, offer the best avenue for overturning this warped intepretation of the Commerce Clause. If people want to regulate\prohibit these drugs, let us pass an amendment like the progressives did in the 1910′s.
WashJeff on February 17, 2010 at 2:35 PM
Nice try, but the term “to regulate,” in the Founding Fathers day meant to “make regular,” not the current definition we mostly use today, as in government regulation. Thus, they would have vested in the Federal government the right “to make regular” the marriage laws across state lines.
mwdiver on February 17, 2010 at 2:36 PM
Sorry, should have been http://www.1800abcdefg.com
mwdiver on February 17, 2010 at 2:44 PM
If they have unfettered power and squander it like they did from 1994 to 2006, by forgetting why they were put there in the first place, then I would agree with you. I, myself, would hope they learned a lesson.
mwdiver on February 17, 2010 at 2:46 PM
So how do my individual healthcare decisions imperil the commerce among the states “in any significant manner” that it must be regulated by the Federal Government?
dominigan on February 17, 2010 at 2:46 PM
If you think it isn’t, you haven’t been paying attention.
mwdiver on February 17, 2010 at 2:49 PM
Or to enable insurance plans to compete across state lines, which would be a legitimate application of the Commerce Clause.
dominigan on February 17, 2010 at 2:49 PM
–Because the sale of insurance products in the various states is a significant part of commerce and because Congress, by an act passed in the 1940s, has the power to regulate insurance.
Jimbo3 on February 17, 2010 at 2:52 PM
I don’t necessarily disagree that they may be able to make that argument. Just not sure it applies in the case of insurance. Making a person’s marriage legal no matter where they may live is a lot different than telling a /person/company/state that all policies must be interchangable across state lines. For example, think of the different common casualty variations between states, i.e. flood, tornado, earthquake, hurricane. One size fits all is not really relavant to insurance.
mwdiver on February 17, 2010 at 2:57 PM
Congress can’t amend the Constitution by passing acts.
It’s clear why you “can’t see any value” to this passage. You want the Constitution so open-ended that any Democrat majority can do what it likes. Mandate every adult buy insurance? Why not, after all– we have an Air Force and the Constitution doesn’t specifically authorize that!
Chris_Balsz on February 17, 2010 at 2:59 PM
States are the regulatory body of insurance. Please site a link to the Federal law you reference.
mwdiver on February 17, 2010 at 3:01 PM
Signed the statement, but frankly I agree with AllahPundit that it’s too vague to really mean anything. I doubt it’ll go anywhere.
joe_doufu on February 17, 2010 at 3:01 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarran%E2%80%93Ferguson_Act
Jimbo3 on February 17, 2010 at 3:02 PM
The sale of insurance products in various states is a significant part of commerce WITHIN EACH STATE.
However, an insurance product is regulated by state insurance boards, and thus cannot cross state lines. Each insurance product is tailored to a particular state. Thus, the Commerce Clause cannot legally be applied to insurance.
Just because a law was passed doesn’t make it Constitutional. In fact, several other FDR-era laws were eventually struck down as un-Constitutional.
dominigan on February 17, 2010 at 3:03 PM
–They were, until FDR threatened to pack the Supreme Court. If you look at the link, the Supreme Court specifically said–in the 1940s–the sale of insurance was part of interstate commerce and so covered by the Commerce Clause. The McCarren-Furguson (sic) Act basically said that Congress was letting the individual states handle insurance. But that Act, which was passed by Congress, can be changed by Congress.
Jimbo3 on February 17, 2010 at 3:06 PM
Jimbo3 is just saying his policy positions are consistent with current intepretation of the Commerce Clause. I would have to agree with him that with this warped interpretation, the Federal government can do anything to you.
A reason the commerce clause has been warped by the Supreme Court is because of FDR’s court packing threat in the Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937. Till then, FDR was having a hard time getting his bills to pass constitutional muster.
FDR exploited a weakness in the constitution, no firm definition of the number of SCOTUS justices, to threaten the current justices. After FDR pitched this bill, the SCOTUS acquiesced to him and the Commerce Clause as it was interpreted until then had finally been altered.
WashJeff on February 17, 2010 at 3:09 PM
That act says congress does not have the power to regulate insurance.
mwdiver on February 17, 2010 at 3:09 PM
State insurance boards have wildly different standards of how insurance can be applied. Here are some examples…
* Different requirements on timeframes / communication channels for dropping coverage.
* Different restrictions for how endorsements can be applied to policies.
* Different restrictions on how calculations can be applied to risk assessment and premiums.
* Different requirements for how packages of home/auto/life can be offered (especially life)
* Different requirements for electronic notifications and signatures.
From an insurance product perspective, each state is a completely different area, which is why it is inappropriate to cite the Commerce Clause in this case.
However, Congress could legally apply the Commerce Clause to force the state insurance boards to be more consistent in their requirements, thus lowering the barrier to entry into states, and increasing competition. I would view this as a valid use of the Commerce Clause… to “make regular” the sale of insurance across state lines.
dominigan on February 17, 2010 at 3:13 PM
He didn’t threaten to do it. He was going to do it and got stopped in his tracks.
“Ultimately, Roosevelt’s proposed legislation failed when the U.S. Senate voted 70–20 to recommit the bill…”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_Reorganization_Bill_of_1937
mwdiver on February 17, 2010 at 3:13 PM
Thanks for confirming what I said with more information.
mwdiver on February 17, 2010 at 3:15 PM
Fred Thompson asked where these folks were during his potus campaign:
Regarding David Frum and Allahnut asking,
No.
Thank you, Allahnut, for finally admitting that you are a progressive neoconservative, and that you are incapable of any respect (let alone tolerance) for Constitutional conservatives. What a shame that your readers don’t know the difference between a conservative and a neoconservative. Neoconservatives embrace augmented and more bureaucracies in government, and dismiss Constitutional limitations and boundaries as limitations are inconvenient. Your neoconservative condemnation for faith to support the Constitution that Libertarians uphold is reprehensible to conservatives who appreciate the Independents and the Tea Party movement. Just as you unjustifiably smeared Fred Thompson during his campaign, you now do the same to Tea Party candidates, and this Mt. Vernon statement. And for all the support that conservative Americans gave to the GOP despite its Kissinger neoconservatism that embraces Marxist nontransparent government and lays further groundwork for Marxism to propagate from Washington DC, all we get in return is a kick in the teeth and knife in the back.
HotAir has presumed to promote Constitutional conservatism and the Tea Party in order to collect readers and sponsors for profit and influence only to sabotage conservatism during elections by promoting illegitimate smear campaigns while playing blind to the corrupt career neoconservative politicians. Keep playing the kickback pimp exposing your own corruption, necessarily in on the take.
maverick muse on February 17, 2010 at 3:17 PM
See
http://law.jrank.org/pages/8497/McCarran-Ferguson-Act-1945.html
Money quote: The McCarran-Ferguson Act does not prevent the federal government from regulating the insurance industry. It provides only that states have broad authority to regulate the insurance industry unless the federal government enacts legislation specifically intended to regulate insurance and to displace state law.
Jimbo3 on February 17, 2010 at 3:24 PM
Anything that draws a line between ‘conservatism’ and David Frum is welcome and necessary.
Chris_Balsz on February 17, 2010 at 3:27 PM
Doesn’t change a thing. You said the act stated that the government could regulate it. It in fact, the act said, the government can’t regulate it (so long as that law is in effect).
mwdiver on February 17, 2010 at 3:42 PM
The looniest bit is McCain and his 10 promises bit.
This is such a distraction. What conservatives in the GOP and Tea Party need to be doing is coming together ON A LOCAL LEVEL and select candidates who fit the fiscal conservatism of all parties involved. We need to stop the splintering that occurred here in Illinois. We had two good conservative candidates in Proft and Andrzejewski, but they split the tea parties and the conservative vote. We need to come together and collectively decide who to back against the RINO party-machine so they get all our support, money, and votes to beat the lefties. Communication, cooperation and decisiveness needs to be the main goal of conservatives right now. Not meaningless statements that everyone already knows instinctively.
chicagojedi on February 17, 2010 at 3:47 PM
Actually to be more clear, I will use the words in the article.
“The McCarran–Ferguson Act does not itself regulate insurance, nor does it mandate that states regulate insurance. Federal acts that do not expressly purport to regulate the “business of insurance” will not preempt state laws or regulations that regulate the “business of insurance.”
Seem pretty plain, and does not go against your link noted above. It does go against your previous post where you said that the act allowed the US to regulate insurance, which it does not.
mwdiver on February 17, 2010 at 3:47 PM
Shakespeare described this perfectly: “Much Ado About Nothing”.
Can we be a little more specific?
Steve Z on February 17, 2010 at 4:11 PM
Actually its sneaky. What Congress did was award themselves the power to regulate it, and then said, well, but we won’t so long as you leave this law alone. Most judges, confronted with a jack-in-the-box like that, will rule any lawsuit about the giant clown puppet is not ripe, and must wait until the lid is sprung and Congress actually DOES regulate insurance.
Chris_Balsz on February 17, 2010 at 4:12 PM
In 2000, Gore won by about 500,000.
Jimbo3 on February 17, 2010 at 2:21 PM
This tells me all I need to know about Jimbo3.
Vince on February 17, 2010 at 4:31 PM
Just goes to show that the people know better than the politicians. Do a side-by-side comparison of the Tea Party Patriots’ Contract From America and THIS piece of lofty-sounding garbage, and see which one is offering solutions versus which one is more or less a pathetic plea for re-election.
Reading wastes of paper like this really make me think that Republicans can be as condescending as Democrats, sometimes. I’m not signing your pandering, platitudinous rag – YOU sign my statement! (That would be the Contract From America, coming to a blog near you.)
Also:
BO-RING. The passion of the Tea Parties didn’t produce this. Republicans fear of that passion is what produced it, and see where that gets them.
I’d love to get as pumped up as a lot of people are about 2010, but when Repubs demonstrate this level of tone-deafness, it’s tough.
Animator Girl on February 17, 2010 at 4:40 PM
So it’s “prudent” to wage feckless, ubercostly, perpetual nation-building wars, and trade our liberties for (the illusion of) safety, and it’s the anti-war paleocons who are “nuts.” Precious!
I wonder how many neoconservatives have developed tics due to their constant state of cognitive dissonance.
The Mount Vernon Statement
Rae on February 17, 2010 at 5:11 PM
Sounds about just right to me.
Dr Evil on February 17, 2010 at 6:27 PM
but the principles here are so broad as to be almost meaningless.
CliffHanger on February 17, 2010 at 6:37 PM
Dang it AP, Frums response looks like something the DNC would ask. You have got to be kidding me!
Frum asks if the document shows us any government solutions to our problems. Conservatism declares that government is the source of those problems. The best solution is to get out of the way, shrink government, reduce and/or eliminate taxes, and allow free market solutions to our problems.
Frum does not get that and apparently neither do you.
conservnut on February 17, 2010 at 8:16 PM
Big government, big spending, big war — it’s how neoconservatives roll.
Rae on February 17, 2010 at 8:53 PM
-Under the Act, Congress allowed the states to regulate insurance. Congress can always change the Act.
Jimbo3 on February 17, 2010 at 10:19 PM
My understanding is that Norquist was one of the signers.
Tea Party folks better start doing some research on who they allow to piggy back on their movment.
HonestConservative on February 17, 2010 at 10:44 PM
Drop the faith and get some fire! Where is Tom Paine? Actually, maybe his name is Allen West?
AshleyTKing on February 18, 2010 at 1:41 AM
Too verbose and gaseous.
All they have to do is say:
We will defend the nation and its borders, support the inherent rights of the American People to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, and restrain the always over-reaching impulses of the State.
Because we understand a fundamental truth:
The smaller the State, the Larger the Citizen.
We are for Great People, not a greater and greater government.
Committee Think always ends up overcomplicating the pure essence of things, intoxicated with its own prolix productions.
Less blather, more action.
profitsbeard on February 18, 2010 at 1:55 AM
AP is no supporter of the phrase :life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness..” it is too general for him…no way that could have any lasting meaning
georgealbert on February 18, 2010 at 6:54 AM
Well, since AP decided to start calling people names, (Paulnuts) I guess it’s OK to say to him, “Hey, A-hole. How about civil discourse instead of name calling, you piece of crap?”
There, think he got the point? Probably not.
RWLA on February 18, 2010 at 6:54 AM
My understanding is that Norquist was one of the signers.
Tea Party folks better start doing some research on who they allow to piggy back on their movment.
HonestConservative on February 17, 2010 at 10:44 PM
============================================
Good point, Norquist is creep
georgealbert on February 18, 2010 at 6:55 AM
It IS too general.
That phrase, especially the latter two parts, has been hijacked by the semi-anarchists, the gay-marriage fanatics and the convenience-abortion-on-demand crowd, among other groups.
‘Liberty’ does not mean ‘do whatever the hell you want, wherever you want to do it, at any given moment.’
‘Pursuing happiness’ for oneself is a pitiful excuse for attempting to redefine an institution as old as civilization itself. You can have all the happiness you like in the privacy of your bedroom, so kindly keep it there.
Dark-Star on February 18, 2010 at 8:51 AM
Don’t see why we are having this discussion. Look at what you originally said. It doesn’t match what you have said since about the law in question. I’m done, as it appears we agree in the latter posts.
mwdiver on February 18, 2010 at 9:23 AM
There’s not much difference between this and the Tea Party Manifesto–just wit’ better words n all.
I’m OK with our supposed betters sticking with broad brush constitutional stuff–just keep them the hell away from medical care, amnesty and other complex “reform” proposals, where they lose perspective, start believing their own phony intellectual bs and tend to be their own, and our, worst enemy.
james23 on February 18, 2010 at 9:32 AM
Will you damn Lefties at HotAir stop kissing Frum’s rear end! Please! Gads – I would love to have HotAir at least move to the center instead of being out there all the time polishing Marx’s books and treatises………….gads!
Cinday Blackburn on February 18, 2010 at 9:37 AM
Harsh, but I think there is a kernel of truth. The game is as old as Arlen Specter, who may have invented it. Talk conservative at money time, meanwhile do everything you can to subvert conservatives.
james23 on February 18, 2010 at 9:38 AM
The Mount Vernon Manifesto is a broad (overly broad in my opinion) statement by a group of establishment politicians that were instrumental in putting the Republican party in the crapper and are now trying to retake some of the power and influence they’ve lost. They can’t be more specific because it’s nothing but a shell game. They don’t mean any of it any more than they did 8 or 10 years ago.
They don’t represent the tea party movement.
Tea Party Patriots is putting together a manifesto that so far looks like something the movement will be able to rally around as a guiding statement of principles and objectives. I think the way it’s being formulated is as important as the final product. It isn’t being put together from the top down like the MVM, but is instead being created by people in the movement.
No, he isn’t.
And he’s still the same old douche he’s always been.
single stack on February 18, 2010 at 10:06 AM
Boy, that’s some pretty mild, PC, sanitized milquetoast. Fact is, the Sharon Statement is STILL the definitive statement of American conservatism. Problem is, the GOP strayed away from its principles (and the Sharon Statement deals with fundamental principles which is why it has stood the test of time). Hey Allah, how about a post comparing and contrasting the two so everyone can see how this new one falls short of the original…
secarr on February 18, 2010 at 10:24 AM
Just for reference and comparison:
Sharon Statement
“Adopted in Conference, at Sharon, Connecticut, on September 11, 1960.”
IN THIS TIME of moral and political crises, it is the responsibility of the youth of America to affirm certain eternal truths.
WE, as young conservatives believe:
THAT foremost among the transcendent values is the individual’s use of his God-given free will, whence derives his right to be free from the restrictions of arbitrary force;
THAT liberty is indivisible, and that political freedom cannot long exist without economic freedom;
THAT the purpose of government is to protect those freedoms through the preservation of internal order, the provision of national defense, and the administration of justice;
THAT when government ventures beyond these rightful functions, it accumulates power, which tends to diminish order and liberty;
THAT the Constitution of the United States is the best arrangement yet devised for empowering government to fulfill its proper role, while restraining it from the concentration and abuse of power;
THAT the genius of the Constitution – the division of powers – is summed up in the clause that reserves primacy to the several states, or to the people in those spheres not specifically delegated to the Federal government;
THAT the market economy, allocating resources by the free play of supply and demand, is the single economic system compatible with the requirements of personal freedom and constitutional government, and that it is at the same time the most productive supplier of human needs;
THAT when government interferes with the work of the market economy, it tends to reduce the moral and physical strength of the nation, that when it takes from one to bestow on another, it diminishes the incentive of the first, the integrity of the second, and the moral autonomy of both;
THAT we will be free only so long as the national sovereignty of the United States is secure; that history shows periods of freedom are rare, and can exist only when free citizens concertedly defend their rights against all enemies…
THAT the forces of international Communism are, at present, the greatest single threat to these liberties;
THAT the United States should stress victory over, rather than coexistence with this menace; and
THAT American foreign policy must be judged by this criterion: does it serve the just interests of the United States?
secarr on February 18, 2010 at 10:32 AM
I love that so many groups are getting together to examine what we believe. What it means to be an American and what self-government means.
This is the most honest self-searching ideological discussion America has had in generations!
The left has opted out. In many ways that is too bad because they should have some input as well. More than being voted down I mean. They will be out of power soon and they won’t even understand why.
I love that these discussions are not academic… they are real life. I love that this is all walks of Americans who choose to participate.
This is better than the Reagan revolution. Because it is truly grass roots, bottom up change.
So this manifesto is vague. It is one of many. E pluribus unum!
This is rough draft history being written right now. I hope we are truly strong enough and dedicated enough to really make a difference in how our government will operate in the future.
This economic downturn may be the answer to all of our prayers to save America and the dream of true liberty from being swallowed up by shallow short sighted Progressives.
This is a war of ideology. Our ideology is better. We will win this.
petunia on February 18, 2010 at 10:35 AM
Hope everyone has read Michelle’s take: An Incovenient Question About the Mount Vernon Statement. Eye opening.
Christian Conservative on February 18, 2010 at 10:39 AM
Do you agree with these statements or not? I don’t see Democrats sitting down and hammering out their principles! As a conservative Independent, I AM PLEASED that conservative leaders ARE coming together to define what binds us. My mother would call many of you “crape hangers”. Anyone remember that one?
Sheesh.
pjean on February 18, 2010 at 10:42 AM
Just read it and it is maddening. They still don’t get it.
yubley on February 18, 2010 at 10:43 AM
I think it is funny that everyone wants to cash in on the great sucess of the Tea Party movement, but that is what it is a movement, not anyone grandstanding and wanting their 15 minutes of fame.
When all the pomp and posturing is over we will still be the people that can wield the power, just us average hardworking, godfearing honest people.
We are the people and NOBODY can claim us as their own and we will prevail. God Bless America
concernedsenior on February 18, 2010 at 10:43 AM
Thank you for posting that! I’m ashamed to admit I have never read it before.
The part I have quoted above it the only part that needs to be rewritten. The rest is spot on.
The threat from Communism is now from within. That was planned during the Soviet Union days and it is coming to fruition now. That should be addressed.
Since communism isn’t really an attack from without anymore what is our foreign policy ideologically based on now? Is it more than just fighting terror? Is it promoting democratic governments? Is it limited to protecting the ability to trade freely?
I know a strong defense is the conservative stand. But what does that mean in real life?
I would also add something about the attack on religious liberty that may not have been as clear back when this was written. It seems to be not all that clear to even some conservatives now.
The not so religious among conservatives don’t seem to understand that this is real and that it is an absolute attack on personal freedom. Because they choose not to be religious… absolutely a right they have… they aren’t really seeing how religious liberty is being affected.
Religious freedom is being limited by pro-choice censorship and the glorification and encouragement of promiscuity in our schools.
Also religion and family life is being undermined at every level of government for instance: changing homosexuality to an issue of civil rights rather than an issue of personal behavior.
This issue is allowed by bad “settled science”. Misusing and manipulating scientific authority to push political agendas is undermining our freedoms. Is a huge problem today.
The science of homosexuality is no more settled science than climate science. Yet we are making sweeping changes to our society based on science that will certainly be different fifty years from now than it is today. Unless of course we have enshrined bad science in law.
(I define bad science as science that must be believed rather than proven.)
petunia on February 18, 2010 at 11:06 AM
It has nothing to do with the tea party movement other than a bunch of opportunists trying to cash in on it.
The authors are establishment politicians that share responsibility for putting the Republican party in the crapper and paving the way for the communists currently in power.
Keene and Norquist are RINOs at best.
single stack on February 18, 2010 at 11:10 AM
I agree. So Michelle you can write. Let’s see a concise mission statement that can be substituted on this issue.
petunia on February 18, 2010 at 11:13 AM
Sad.
Grow Fins on February 18, 2010 at 11:20 AM
RINOs tea toddler counter to the grassroots Tea Party …
Not my cup of tea. Why not just propose fidelity to the Constitution?
tarpon on February 18, 2010 at 11:26 AM
Hmmmm…. OK… could we all agree on a few things…
1. Redefine the Commerce Clause by either Law, or Amendment, BACK to the Framers intention, ie, the Federal Government being a Referee between the States IF they have a trade dispute, not having total control of all Commerce.
2. Clarify Emminent Domain, to where TAX revenue increases are NOT a valid reason to take someones property.
3. Redefine the General Welfare clause to its origional intent, ie, a limitation on what you can spend on, not a carte blanche to spend on anything (ie, it must affect all 50 States EQUALY, all peoples and classes equaly, including economic distinctions).
4. Repeal the Amendment which made the Senate seats popularly elected, and make is the State Legislatures choose ONE Senator of that State, and the Governor selects the Other… ie put back a REAL limit to Federal Power grabs (currently the only one who decides what powers the Fed Gov has, is the Fed Gov, and you can’t even sue them unless they give you permission… Right to petition for Redress is gone…).
5. Law which States that on CONSITUTIONAL issues, you do NOT have to proove Damage, to Gain Standing, as we are ALL damaged when the Consitution is not followed.
Would some of these work?
Romeo13 on February 18, 2010 at 11:42 AM
Gee you know more than me. We really have changed the constitution… that should only be done by amendment… overwhelming majority needed.
Michelle had issue with these guy’s position on illegal immigration.
petunia on February 18, 2010 at 12:01 PM
I know. It really is maddening…
Rae on February 18, 2010 at 12:25 PM
I only speak for me.
This nonsense reminds me that populism is often 70% nonsense.
Jeesh*
AnninCA on February 18, 2010 at 1:06 PM
I say that they can keep Lincoln. You actually think that Lincoln is the gold standard for Constitutional-Governance?
whiskeytango on February 18, 2010 at 4:06 PM
Lincoln fought the Civil War like you wish Bush would have fought the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
I will give him this – he really didn’t have much choice in the matter. The South fired first, on a federal installation, located on the American homeland, and posed a credible invasion threat to the capital itself. If that isn’t a justifiable war of defense, I don’t know what is.
Dark-Star on February 18, 2010 at 5:57 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »