Objective review of Republican candidates for President

[Karl Henning]

Who gives a shit? 

Dude, that's just the Bachmann-exhaustion setting in! ; )

[drogulus]

     Newt has lots of ideas. Inevitably some are good. Also, Hitler put Germany back to work and the Volkswagen is a cool car. Yet.....I have the faint suspicion that an occasional good idea isn't enough when you consider the whole package of rabblerousing, scapegoating and all around nastiness and treachery that Newt embodies. Am I being too pure? Shouldn't I take the bad with the good, take the moonbase and ignore the racism? I can't manage it, there's too much bad and too little good.

     Besides, I don't vote for an individual, I vote for everything the individual brings in his wake. That's a revoltin' thought with Newt.

     Newt was just endorsed by jailed ex-congressman Duke Cunningham. Hold on, now, this changes everything!

[kishnevi]

The moonbase is a good example of why Newt is not a small government conservative.   First,  I've seen comments suggesting  that this was really a pander to those people whose jobs are threatened by the Obama Administration decision to end the Shuttle program,  something particularly pertinent to Central Florida.  Second, this is where privatization could be effectively used:  lease out the facilities at Cape Canaveral (or offer them for use after paying a fee each time) to those companies that are trying to organize private space flight.  Let them set up moonbases if they want to.
But Newt can only think of the government doing it, in the same spirit as European explorers tried to conquer the entire world in the 16th through 19th centuries.  Although this time there doesn't seem to be a native population whom the conquerors can exterminate through disease, reservations, etc. etc.

Newt is a big government conservative (meaning essentially an authoritarian type of conservative)--same as Romney, Santorum, and almost all the other GOP candidates have been this year--the reverse, in practice, of what the much vaunted Tea Party claims it wants.

So either the Tea Party has run out of steam, at least temporarily, or it was never more than an anti-Obama movement run by a GOP establishment trying to harness conservative anger to their own ends.  Perhaps I'm cynical, but at the moment I opt for the second alternative.

[Karl Henning]

The Tea Party's run out of steam: the kettle is punctured! : )

[Lethevich]

The bag has deflated

[drogulus]

The moonbase is a good example of why Newt is not a small government conservative.   

     That maybe the best thing about him (it's a short list). The most important reason for being a small government conservative is to keep goods from spreading widely through society and diluting the power and authority of those who have them now. That's what small government is for. It's not well suited to creating a society of general prosperity, or keeping it.

     For the purposes of political confrontation the conservative will argue otherwise but the mask slips from time to time and general welfare arguments are replaced by arguments about how sinful it is for everyone to get things they want. It follows from this that it isn't the failure of the welfare state that conservatives object to, but the success that it has, in the main, demonstrated. When will the day of reckoning come? That's a pretty good question if we're sinners in the hands of an angry god, or unicorn, or something. We're not, that is a government has no right to assume we are, and also we're not.

[Lethevich]

Jon Stewart on Newt's Moon Colony: "He Wants to Leave the Earth for a Younger Planet"

[drogulus]

     The moon is smaller so it can have a smaller government.

     Read my lips, no Lunar Taxes!

     If you want to understand Newt, read Robert Heinlein. It's all there: futurism, sex, libertarianism, more sex, moon colonies, some extra sex just because I'm patriotic and work hard.....

[Florestan]

Newt can only think of the government doing it, in the same spirit as European explorers tried to conquer the entire world in the 16th through 19th centuries. 

That's not quite accurate, at least in the case of Spaniards. Most of their South-American expansion in the 16th century was the work of private adventurers, oftenly acting without, or even contrary to, governmental orders - the most famous of them being Hernan Cortes and Francisco Pizaro.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

That's not quite accurate, at least in the case of Spaniards. Most of their South-American expansion in the 16th century was the work of private adventurers, oftenly acting without, or even contrary to, governmental orders - the most famous of them being Hernan Cortes and Francisco Pizaro.

And not just the Spaniards. Consider also the activities of the British and Dutch East India Companies.

[drogulus]

    So most of the worst depredations of colonialism were private enterprises? I guess you could add the slave trade in there, too. And the opium trade, too, right?

    But what about Big Government,  that takes away our freedom to, you know....buy and sell....things? It's still bad, right?

[Karl Henning]

So most of the worst depredations some of the activities of colonialism were private enterprises?

Yes, but enterprises which enjoyed protective charters from the government : )

[drogulus]

Yes, but enterprises which enjoyed protective charters from the government : )

     You mean big liberal welfare state government? No, small government issued charters and big humanist Enlightenment governments took them away. I don't think modern conservatives want to reintroduce slavery. What they want is to defeat the form of government that took it away from them.

[Christo]

And not just the Spaniards. Consider also the activities of the British and Dutch East India Companies.

Indeed. The Dutch East India Company and, more appropriately in this case: the West India Company, were private companies. Only in the 19th century colonialism became a matter of national concern.

[kishnevi]

     That maybe the best thing about him (it's a short list). The most important reason for being a small government conservative is to keep goods from spreading widely through society and diluting the power and authority of those who have them now. That's what small government is for. It's not well suited to creating a society of general prosperity, or keeping it.

And big governments are even less suited to creating such a society and even more suited to keeping goods in the hands of people with power and authority, since it's easier with a big government to assert such control.

Think, for instance, of how businesses use the regulation systems, especially at state and local levels, to block or at least seriously hinder possible competitors, by helping put in place regulations that are easy for them to comply with because they have the equipment/capital/etc. but potential starts up do not.

Or to look at it from another perspective: the bigger the government, the more power is available to be misused by those with an interest to misuse it (meaning the "haves"); the smaller the government, the less less power available for misuse.

     For the purposes of political confrontation the conservative will argue otherwise but the mask slips from time to time and general welfare arguments are replaced by arguments about how sinful it is for everyone to get things they want. It follows from this that it isn't the failure of the welfare state that conservatives object to, but the success that it has, in the main, demonstrated. When will the day of reckoning come? That's a pretty good question if we're sinners in the hands of an angry god, or unicorn, or something. We're not, that is a government has no right to assume we are, and also we're not.

You're making the mistake of thinking that social conservatives actually belong in the same camp as economic conservatives--something many people do, especially since the social conservatives often try to foster the belief that they are small government conservatives.  But they aren't.  They believe in big government as much as you do--the only difference between you and them is in what areas of life you want government power to be applied.  But for them economic conservatism is simply and add on to their real beliefs, subject to be jettisoned when it gets in the way.

And thank you to all of you for the corrections regarding the government ties of European explorers.  I knew that--I was just speaking too hastily and off the cuff.  But I might mention that the governments which gave the Dutch and British East India companies their charters were not small government as economic conservatives understand the term--the European governments were ready to interfere and regulate in economic matters as readily as "big government' today, or even more.  The charters themselves are evidence of this--they not only established the companies, but in several cases granted them monopolies (or at least purported to do so)--the government was banning other traders for the benefit of its chosen few.

[Coopmv]

The Tea Party's run out of steam: the kettle is punctured! : )

While I cannot stand most Democrats, I have no use for the Tea Party either.

[jowcol]

You're making the mistake of thinking that social conservatives actually belong in the same camp as economic conservatives--something many people do, especially since the social conservatives often try to foster the belief that they are small government conservatives.  But they aren't.  They believe in big government as much as you do--the only difference between you and them is in what areas of life you want government power to be applied.  But for them economic conservatism is simply and add on to their real beliefs, subject to be jettisoned when it gets in the way.

YES!  I totally agree.  I'd also say the most "conservatives" from a foreign policy perspective favor a strong defense, which , since it is funded through taxes and operated at the national governmnt is anything  but small government.

In my opinion, using these criteria, a true libertarian would fail the litmus test for being a social conservative or foreign policy conservative.

[eyeresist]

Indeed. The Dutch East India Company and, more appropriately in this case: the West India Company, were private companies. Only in the 19th century colonialism became a matter of national concern.

For instance, the British government only went into India after super-efficient private enterprise had made a mess of things. Government bail-outs yet again!

In related news, I was shocked to learn that Mitt Romney is rich, at least based on his tax returns.

Didn't you know this competition is multi-millionaires only?

[ibanezmonster]

Didn't you know this competition is multi-millionaires only?

I'm pretty sure that was sarcasm. 

[eyeresist]

I'm pretty sure that was sarcasm. 

Yeah, I guess you're right. In the Wunderland of US politics, one can't always be sure