Neo-conservatives are recognizing this in their increasingly loud shoutdowns of the other end of the spectrum, using their 1960′s tactics to paint the paleo-conservatives as Isolationists. The paleo-conservatives, having been bested in the 80′s and 90′s, are already grumpy, but find their message at least being listened to and mentioned in the press. I believe that is so partially due to it being in-line with the founding fathers original intent .

Facts and musings aside, it really comes down to who delivers their message better. I give the advantage to the neo-conservatives, as they are masters of manipulation when it comes to painting their opposition as anti-troops/anti-america (when in reality the polar-opposite is true).

Neo-conservatives are recognizing this in their increasingly loud shoutdowns of the other end of the spectrum, using their 1960′s tactics to paint the paleo-conservatives as Isolationists. The paleo-conservatives, having been bested in the 80′s and 90′s, are already grumpy, but find their message at least being listened to and mentioned in the press. I believe that is so partially due to it being in-line with the founding fathers original intent .

Facts and musings aside, it really comes down to who delivers their message better. I give the advantage to the neo-conservatives, as they are masters of manipulation when it comes to painting their opposition as anti-troops/anti-america (when in reality the polar-opposite is true).

Well that’s a good reason to be happy. A people’s representative should represent them. If he’s a strong conservative, even better!

Still, none of that goodness will justify Lisa’s factual errors.

Chuck Gross wrote, “conservatives will fight over word-smithing by inter-party foes as a reason to hate a candidate.”

This dispute is not over word-smithing, but over factual errors. There is a crease in the Republican Party. It’s a crease, not a rift, because as you point out there is substantial agreement among the caucuses. These creases divide paleo-conservatives, neo-conservatives.

The disputes between the two camps is not trivial, as Chuck seems to think. While there is 95% agreement, the issues at dispute are quite substantial.

Neo-conservatives like big government; paleo-conservatives want a strictly limited government. Neo-conservatives are comfortable with government interference in society; paleo-conservatives want society to develop free of a “tyranny of experts.”. Neo-conservatives are supply-siders; paleo-conservatives advocate consumer sovereignty. Neo-conservatives accept the radical changes of the New Deal; paleo-conservatives want to roll back the entire edifice of the administrative state.

Chuck, if we can’t achieve agreement let us achieve clarity. Let us know each other’s position. Only clarity is a basis for cooperation on the 95% area of agreement.

Because Lisa Graas overreaches and distorts rather than clarifies, her approach will yield only discord.

We’re conservatives. We tell the truth and deal with facts as best we can. We don’t make stuff up.

Well that’s a good reason to be happy. A people’s representative should represent them. If he’s a strong conservative, even better!

Still, none of that goodness will justify Lisa’s factual errors.

Chuck Gross wrote, “conservatives will fight over word-smithing by inter-party foes as a reason to hate a candidate.”

This dispute is not over word-smithing, but over factual errors. There is a crease in the Republican Party. It’s a crease, not a rift, because as you point out there is substantial agreement among the caucuses. These creases divide paleo-conservatives, neo-conservatives.

The disputes between the two camps is not trivial, as Chuck seems to think. While there is 95% agreement, the issues at dispute are quite substantial.

Neo-conservatives like big government; paleo-conservatives want a strictly limited government. Neo-conservatives are comfortable with government interference in society; paleo-conservatives want society to develop free of a “tyranny of experts.”. Neo-conservatives are supply-siders; paleo-conservatives advocate consumer sovereignty. Neo-conservatives accept the radical changes of the New Deal; paleo-conservatives want to roll back the entire edifice of the administrative state.

Chuck, if we can’t achieve agreement let us achieve clarity. Let us know each other’s position. Only clarity is a basis for cooperation on the 95% area of agreement.

Because Lisa Graas overreaches and distorts rather than clarifies, her approach will yield only discord.

We’re conservatives. We tell the truth and deal with facts as best we can. We don’t make stuff up.

http://www.amconmag.com/article/2010/mar/01/00040/

http://www.amconmag.com/article/2010/mar/01/00040/

All of us probably agree on 95% of issues (5% disagreement on Pro-America vs. Pro-Global foreign policy view), yet conservatives will fight over word-smithing by inter-party foes as a reason to hate a candidate.