FEULNER: Conservatism vital signs

A point for all to keep in mind, there WAS no mandate, the "American People" didn't vote for Obama en masse, 3% more voted for Obama, who won 52/46. Had that 3% voted for McCain, he would have won by the same margin. That's 3 people out of a hundred, some of whom were misguided by the demos and their press groupies into believing that everything bad that happened in the last 8 years was the fault of the Republicans. Let's try to keep it in perspective. Possibly 3% will build up an immunity to kool-aid or an aversion to BS, or finally hold the democrats responsible again for what they do and don't do in the next 2-4 years, I'll hope so.

There is really a lot of confusion coming from conservative thinkers. We were hammered over and over with how Obama's campaign promises were SOCIALISM, and yet now we have Ed Feulner telling us that Obama was running a moderate conservative campaign all along! Was Mr. Feulner complaining in previous columns about how UNFAIR Senator McCain's attacks were? After all, SOCIALISM is hardly moderate conservative, is it? And as far as that stupid old meme regarding how "liberal" Senator Obama was previously? Can we see some EVIDENCE of this? After all, we voters were told the same thing about Senator Kerry, who now, mysteriously, is no longer THE most lieral... is it possible that it was MADE UP? Here is a link to various groups that rated the Senate on liberal vs conservative voting records... http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Senate/lib_senator_ratings-2007.html You will note that OBAMA IS NOWHERE NEAR the top of any of their lists. The groups that rated the senators are as follows: ACLU - American Civil Liberties Union ADA - Americans for Democratic Action CDF - Children's Defense Fund LCV - League of Conservation Voters NAACP - National Association for the Advancement of Colored People NARAL - National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League SEIU - Service Employees International Union

The media has become the guard dog for Obama instead of the watch dog on the 1st Amendment. Schumer has already stated the Congress will reinitiate action for the Fairness Doctrine. Mr. Feulner may be optimistic, but conservative ideas may have to go underground or be forced out of business because the other side doesn't want to discuss the issue (Fairness Doctrine). That includes the internet. So much for the first amendment.

A central point that the poll numbers cited in this article glosses over (rather conveniently) is that Americans are a lot less united in how they feel that government spending should be cut. Yes, everybody is for reducing the size of the government so that we can all be taxed less, but when it comes down to making the hard choices about which programs to cut there is no unanimity. What makes me a composite in my political views, and what keeps me from embracing the traditional views of conservatism, is this notion that we need to maintain a huge standing army, that we need to put so much into defense (which should more properly be labeled offense). Ike warned us about the military-industrial complex -- if you are employed in this sector or have lots of stock in this sector, you have probably already stopped being objective in your consideration of what I write here. I do NOT argue that we just sit back and wait to be attacked. No, we must acknowledge that we are not well liked throughout the world, and that improving our image will help reduce terrorist recruiting and fundraising efforts. Call it enlightened self-interest or self-preservation, but don't call it weak. Rather, it is smart. Money invested in improving how we are perceived (never mind the validity of the perception that may exist, just work to improve it) will pay higher dividends than maintaining a large standing army in bases scattered across the globe. Admittedly, the reduction in hegemony that will accompany a reduced military presence may also reduce some of the economic advantages we now enjoy, but I am willing to stake my financial success or failure on a doctrine of fairness because I believe that we have the work ethic and intellectual fortitude to thrive in almost any market. I don't have full confidence that Obama will make this realization any time in the near future, but I can hope. I can also hope that the GOP will wake up to this reality.

Obama lied when he talked about doing things like a conservative, all of his private conversations that were made public were about how he was going to govern from the far left. Those private moments told much more about the man then the public speeches.

tanzkuchen: You are hopelessly naive. Do you think for a moment that the same people who sawed the head from Nichols' body will suddenly throw flowers to us if we reduce the effectiveness of our military? Perhaps you think Gorbachev would have meekly dismantled the USSR if President Reagan had simply asked nicely, rather than spend him into oblivion on military building. Why should we care what the rest of the world thinks?! They are mostly in shambles in their economies, their societies and their morality. Why should we want to be like Europe, or even liked by Europe, when our system has proven itself superior for 200 years?! Without spending to maintain our technological advantage, how long do you think it would be before China simply over-ran us with superior numbers; or, at least imposed its will on all of Asia and Australia? You need to get the mush in your head to gel into something resembling a thinking organ.

wunderwood: Either you don't get it, or you are willfully distorting the point of this article. The Communist Organizer RAN on the right of his TRUE political philosophy. He is a socialist in the pattern of Wright, Ayers, Alinski, and Pfleger. He is the reincarnation of Jimmy Carter (and Carter isn't even dead yet -- at least, not physically), only worse. Get your leisure suits ready for sitting in the gas lines, folks; the 70s are coming back.

It seems some posters don't understand the objective of this article: they think it's written to support Obama. Actually, the article is an attempt to bolster conservatism. After all, this week more Americans voted for the Democratic candidate than the Republican, which could lead some to believe that the voters approved more of the Liberal position than the Conservative one. One way to undermine that assumption is to say that only by running as a Conservative could a candidate win - one who runs as a Liberal would be rejected by voters. The problem with this is that Mr. Feulner himself previously claimed that Obamaas running not as a Conservative, not even as a Liberal, but as a Socialist!!! Unless Mr. Feulner is now claiming that Ronald Reagan was a Socialist, he is being the most bold-faced liar I've seen in a while. Either Mr. Feulner was lying before the election by claiming Obama was running as a Socialist, or he's lying now by saying he ran as a Reaganite Conservative. Actually, he's lying in BOTH instances. A progressive tax code, which is the traditional tax structure of the US since 1917, is not socialism. Mr. Feulner knows this very well, even if his readers don't. He could have chosen to educate them rather than lie to them. Obama never ran as a socialist, or a conservative. It can be argued that he ran as a Liberal. If so, the Liberals won on Tuesday. They cannot be any worse than the administration currently in office.