It’s not the conservative philosophy many of us question–whose responses, whether Boehner, Ryan, DeMint, Graham, Barbour, writers like David Brooks, Buchanan, or stations like Fox, are scripted and predictable. The philosophy seems better at defining what it is against rather than what it is for–and refining the details that solve its flaws.
Therein, is the rub: most liberals cite examples, offer sound logic and reasons, discuss both sides of the issue, and weigh benefits going forward, while cautioning against negatives.
The question I ask directly: how can you endorse the misrepresentations that substitute for real conservativism? How can you accept the lies and never call officials and others on them? How can conservatives, who believe in less government intrusion, regulate and require procedures including hall width, drinking fountains, mandated waiting time, and interior probes to “ensure” the health of women’s vaginas?
How can you endorse the sole power of governor’s to appoint receivers for muncipalities whose power is absolute over a city’s assets and elected authority?
It’s not “your” greed but the greed of others who call themselves conservatives I at least wonder how you can support. It’s not conservative policy, but conservative dishonesty that leaves me, and no doubt, others, astounded. Tell us: how do you deal with good ideas toppled by deceit?