Home » Home » Allen West – Western Conservative Summit 2013

Comments

Allen West – Western Conservative Summit 2013 — 57 Comments

  1. I thought he was on the right track for a while but had to cut him off in disgust as he began to preach in his godly view of how conservatism is under the banner of his understanding of the creation of this country. He is just another guy that wants government to be structured to impose his religious values on the rest of us. I detest everyone who does that. If he and others would just simply focus on true conservative values and separate religion out. I just don’t think they can and do not trust them to do so. His connection of Christian values and faith as the justification of his view of the proper poltical system is simply disgusting to me.

    • Why is it more important where someones values come from than the values themselves? Is it his Christian values that disgust you or just the fact that they happen to be values that he describes as Christian? I would compare that to what I call the “Hank Hill syndrome” Hank won’t eat a steak if it’s cooked with charcoal and not propane simply because he cooks with propane.

        • Can you site examples? I have never heard of any law being passed simply on the basis of bible verse. I can’t think of any court legal argument based on bible verse. Help me out here.

        • Most repealed. The ones that aren’t are never enforced. Used to be no beer before noon on Sundays. Just picked one up last week at 10:00. Liquor stores can now open on Sundays too.

        • Good example BTW. I hadn’t thought of them. Guess I have to rephrase to modern laws. Although the blue laws weren’t as much biblical as they were convenient. Back then everybody went to church and got tired of having folks show up loaded. 🙂

        • Oh and I think those blue laws were on the books as a compromise to allow northern states representatives to back the repeal of prohibition.

        • Regardless of hidden agendas, it was still a successful attempt to abridge our Constitution to regulate morality, with entirely predictable and devastating unintended consequences. ◄Dave►

        • Absolutely, but so was everybody back then. They were also a heavy majority of women, and at the root the movement had more to do with women wanting sober husbands than biblical teachings. Religion was just their excuse.

        • Yes it was, but do you think if the only reason was religion they would have pulled it off? It never would have generated the magnitude of attention required. There were many other reasons. The same as nanny Bloombergs law on soda. How did he get enough support to pass it just because he thinks it’s not good for you?

        • I see that Dave chimed in with the perfect example before I could. Thank you DH!

          I would add that any laws regulating bedroom/marriage behavior fit this bill. The Constitution never mentions these words, yet there are plenty of laws on the books about these.

          Lastly, your response is a bit of a straw man (Bible verses to laws?) West, Santorum, Bachmann, Ben Carson, et al, all use their religious belief systems in their campaigning. As I voter, should I not believe that they would, if elected, govern (enact/enforce) laws based on their Biblical interpretations?

          SCOTUS (arguably a ‘defender’ of the Constitution) has ruled on abortion, gay marriage, etc., yet that has not stopped the Religious Right conservatives from including that in every stump speech they give. Of course they would place their Biblical interpretations of such above settled law if given a chance.

        • There is a lot of bad “settled law” out there Mary. You don’t have to be religious to see it. That aside conservatives are forced into mentioning it. Their base requires it. My response to Larry below may explain my position better.

        • Odds are if we don’t get our act together there will be all the legal abortion anyone can stand. Probably most common in around the 210th trimester.

        • SCOTUS also found Obamacare constitutional. Are you now willing to just roll over and say ok that’s good law? When a religious organization challenges it on the grounds of freedom of religion and wins is that bad law? Granted if they could win on simply the basis of individual liberty it would be better but isn’t a win a win with religious liberty being part of individual liberty?

        • OCare is a disaster and Chief Traitor John Roberts ought to be strung up by his toenails, but you’ve moved the goalpoasts Of course there are bad laws on the books. Point is, I can and have held my noise to pull the level to vote for a Christian, but doubt it ever goes the other way. An atheist will never be elected. Hell, Romney wasn’t even Christian enough for the nutters!

      • Chris… it has to be very difficult for believers to understand the depth of commitment of those who do not believe in God. We reject all efforts of all believers to use government to impose their beliefs on all citizens. It is also very difficult for us to understand how those people can square their use of government with their belief in small government and individual rights. Just does not make sense.

        • Larry I completely respect that commitment and actually don’t find it difficult to understand. I asked my questions not to challenge your beliefs but to question where they leave us. Again I don’t challenge your opinion but isn’t it pretty much the same as those “bible thumper’s” who say “I will never vote for someone who isn’t a Godly man”? That man can have all the right conservative or libertarian ideas but if he doesn’t mention God he loses that voting block. If he mentions God he loses non-believers.

          I am a believer but by no means a “bible thumper” of any sort. I cringe every time a conservative politician is roped into one of the social issues but only because I know what he’s doing to himself. I also realize that the major portion of their base requires it. In this day and age it’s highly unlikely that it means anything in the way they would actually govern.
          I’m just frustrated watching both ends of the political/religious spectrum throwing out the baby with the bath water.

        • By the way this is exactly the same opinion I took with the “bible thumpers” during the 2012 when they were having fits over voting for a Mormon. We now live the alternative.

  2. When I get the time I might try to do some background on him to see why he retired as a colonel. It may be he was riffed out but I’ll bet he crossed some superiors along the way and got some bad reviews so he couldn’t move up any further. BTW…I don’t think we elect colonels as president do we?

    • His riff within the military is quite well documented. It was covertly mentioned to by the man who introduced him. It wasn’t politically correct. Of course you will have to sort thru the BS to get the real story.

      • Can’t disagree with that altho I think the voters experience with O will cause them to look a bit deeper which would obviously disqualify Mr. West. I like Paul the more I hear him but it is probably all a bit academic since Hillary is a lock.

        • I doubt you would see Mr. West run. Although I don’t think he would be disqualified as much as maybe not qualified and I think he knows it. Hillary won’t make it thru the primaries but I have to admit that I’m clueless as to who the dems would put up. Uncle Joe? The same as I’m in a fog over who the republicans will run. Paul is a grandstander like daddy but like daddy hasn’t accomplished anything but making noise. The same with Cruz (who would lose the “birther vote” right off) Rubio? never in a million years. Oddly enough Palin is probably most qualified but I don’t see it. There is one that nobody talks about and that has taken some odd actions. Jim DiMint. Fresh out of the shadows after sucking up all kinds of info from the Heritage Foundation for the past four years. That’s where the smart money for a price will be.

        • Curios that you don’t see Clinton as a lock (what polls are you reading?) She’ll run unopposed and win in a landslide. Our only hope is that her blood clot returns.

          We can scream “Remember Benghazi” till the cows come home. Nobody cares. They still counter with their tu quoques “Oh yeah, how many did Bush kill”. It’s hopeless.

          Moving on … regardless of Cruz’s eligibility, do you really think he’d lose GOP support due to birtherism? (Dave’s concern aside for the moment)

          Lastly, love Palin all you want. She is unelectable. She has no wide national appeal. Will never get the nomination, much less a desk in the WH.

          Rubio, Christie and Jeb Bush are toast as well. Traitors, RINOs and too much baggage to gain mass support.

        • I see Hillary as electable as Jeb Bush. I think everybody is tired of the whole lot of them. The only thing that would save Hillary is if women are as hungry for the first female president as minorities and the guilty white were hungry for a black president. In spite of her absolute lack of qualifications outside of being a gifted liar and opportunist.

          Ted Cruz? I think there are enough conservatives that are now aware of the requirements laid out in the constitution that he would lose considerable support. That doesn’t mean he would lose GOP support. That does mean he wouldn’t win the general and it’s something the GOP has to consider. He would also never get the moderate vote or the dissatisfied dems to make up the difference.

          I agree on Palin for the reasons you mention. Too bad too. She’s probably just what the doctor ordered. Ya gotta admit that the primaries would be fun to watch though.

          So what are your thoughts on my Jim DiMint postulation?

        • Sadly, I’m not as up to speed on DeMint as I should be, but, serendipity baby, cuz he’s on Fox Sunday with Chris Wallace. I’ll tune in and see what he says. Might be too old? Certainly cranky enough, which is good. 🙂

          Also on Fox Sunday is Rep. Amash from MI, who is another member of that ‘wacko bird’ caucus. Should be an entertaining show.

          Agreed about primaries. Will be a hoot. Just hope GOP has learned from the debacle last year. Save the venom for the general election, not each other. And no Candy Crowley for debate moderator!

        • Oh great. I didn’t know he was going to be on. Might be worth catching. I just have a feeling about him. I also think that all the “outside players would get behind him. He’s got a few bad votes but over all he’s got a good conservative record. He’s not the ideal for libertarians but may be something to work with.

        • I will also say that you may see in the early primaries. It’s my thoughts that some who were in the 2012 primaries where there to only make one candidate seem “less extreme”. ie Bachmann and Santorum. Both destined to self destruct on cue.

  3. Demint is one of the worst of the religious right. He is worse than Bachman in that regard. Not a chance in the world he could be the gop candidate.

      • I must disagree Chris. He’s already shown he’s clueless about his national exposure by making ridiculous statements about gays and single moms. He can believe whatever he wants about those groups, but not knowing enough to clam up when mikes and cameras are around prove he’s a loser for GOP. It’s Akin, et al, all over again.

        • Well, I guess that’s my point. There is no central commanding figure in the GOP. I’d go with Cruz in a heartbeat, yet there are folks like Dave who’d go the birther route.

          Every single name floated has his/her detractors, unlike the Dems who, bless their twisted little souls, know enough to circle the wagons and coalesce around one.

        • Which is what we also have to do. If Cruz were the nominee much to my disliking I would probably vote for him. It would be against my principals and to me outside the letter of the law but it’s also not the first time. They broke that with Obama. I no We can’t afford eight more years of progressives. It will be gone. I can’t let that happen and I’ll do whatever it takes to stop it. Legal or not.

        • Pragmatism can be a curse, Chris. Conventional wisdom says it will be Hillary vs. Christie. If so, are you going with Christie to stop Hillary, or might you be up for taking a flyer on a non-Incumbrepublocrat?

        • If it’s Christie it wouldn’t be worth voting. Same animal with different skin. Hillary would trounce him anyway.

        • So to amswer your questio. (which I somehow neglected to do) I would consider a third party candidate in quite a few circumstances. That being one.

        • You Betcha she is! And you know what, it is going to be worse than I thought a few months ago. The GOP is imploding, no leadership yet no way, seemingly, for anyone of any stature to rise up and take control. What a f/////ing mess.

  4. Great discussion. It is time to try out my new monster iPad (Windows 8 machine with a 27″ touch screen monitor) and weigh in. 🙂

    A whole lot is going to change between now and ’16, which will undoubtedly drastically alter the metrics we are currently considering for POTUS candidates. We are rapidly running out of road, down which to kick the fiscal can. If we somehow avoid a total collapse, martial law, FEMA camps, and a hot civil war before then, it will be a miracle. For the sake of discussion, I will pretend to believe in miracles, and assume the survivalists will still be prepping and not yet executing their bug out plans by November of ’16. In any case, issue #1 will have to be economic survival. This will not bode well for pandering Progressives, situated in either wing of the Incumbrepublocrat duopoly.

    I have always said that the real dichotomy in American politics, is between the city folk and country folk. This will be in stark relief by ’16, as the Progressives struggle to bail out one utterly corrupt and bankrupt Detroit after another, where most of their constituents reside. More fiscally responsible country folk aren’t going to put up with increasing the national debt, to make sure retired government employees get their promised lavish pensions. Even the ghetto dwellers living on the dole, will choke on the figures involved, and be less than sympathetic for the overpaid and under-worked public service unions. Expect this to easily overshadow the social issues in upcoming elections.

    Personally, I am going to wait to see how the midterm elections in ’14 shake out for the TEA Party, before I spend much effort war gaming ’16. Whether to co-opt the R’s or form a new Party is still an open question. There are significant advantages and disadvantages to either approach toward breaking up the Progressive lock the current duopoly has on our politics. Taking over the existing infrastructure of the Republican Party seems to be the simpler task; but then how long would it take to erase the negative image it has with the independent swing voters who decide elections? Especially, since it would still have the Progressive RINO’s trying to pull it too far to the Left socially, and the bible thumpers trying to pull it too far to the Right. Meanwhile, the Democrats have done such a good job of demonizing it as the Party of heartless racist fat cats, that most of their constituents would never consider voting for a Republican, under any circumstances whatever.

    While starting a new Party is a daunting task, which would undoubtedly take more than one election cycle to accomplish, there is much to recommend it, with only the one drawback of likely splitting the conservative/libertarian vote at first, effectively electing the Democrat. After the debacles of ’08 and ’12, this no longer disturbs me. If the Republican establishment’s best Progressive candidate couldn’t beat the Obamessiah twice, who thinks Chris Christie could beat Hillary? Besides, if we somehow survive Obama’s reign, we can survive anything, including Hillary. There is no way to convince me that Hillary would be any worse than Obama, or probably even Christie, for that matter.

    Our efforts would be better spent building a centrist Party promoting small, Constitutional, fiscally conservative, socially and economically laissez-faire government. If it were intent on cutting government, and repealing unnecessary statutes, bureaucratic regulations, and onerous taxes, rather than growing it in the ‘right’ direction, it could easily attract considerable support from fiscally conservative moderates. This would include those who nominally vote Democrat, as the lesser of two evils, because they fear the bible thumpers more than the Marxists, and those (like me) who nominally vote Republican, because they fear the Marxists more than they fear the fundamentalists.

    The TEA Party is pissed, and rightly planning for some righteous payback in ’14. Efforts are already underway to ‘Primary’ many of the establishment Republican Party ‘leaders.’ This will drive the Karl Rove types to distraction, and it promises to get publicly ugly. If they continue to disparage the TEA Party, and effectively shut them out of leadership roles in the Party, I think we can expect the formation of a new Party. I will welcome it, and get to work doing the needful with enthusiasm. If, on the other hand, they manage to stay on the same team, my participation in ’16 will be more in the nature of an interesting spectator sport. I am beyond taking the Incumbrepublocrat Kabuki Theater seriously.

    If a new Party does take shape, I suspect Palin, West, and perhaps DeMint would jump in with both feet. Because he could write his own checks, I would even welcome Donald Trump. Imagine what Ross Perot could have accomplished in this political climate. We might never have heard of Monica Lewinsky, and would not now be contemplating another Hillary for President campaign. 🙂 ◄Dave►

  5. Your absolutely right about it being early to be worrying about 2016. In a normal world it’s too early to talk about 2014. I bring it up in this group because as you said this isn’t something that can be done in one election cycle. I believe there’s more in common between conservatives and libertarians than there is separating them. It takes time to reconcile those differences and strengthen the commonalities. I believe conservatives will win the mid terms in 2014 much the way they did in 2010 but if 2016 goes to a progressive administration we’re pretty much in the same boat as we are right now. A congress that can’t move legislation because of a stonewalling administration that would use back door executive orders that actually run the show. Or if you prefer, a dictatorship.

    • That is as good a reason as any to start the new centrist Party now, and leave the Incumbrepublocrats to the utopians on the Left and Right, who elevate the needs and mores of their herds above the natural rights of the individual. It is my firm conviction that at least a plurality (and probably a majority) of Americans would eagerly vote for Liberty (at least in Federal elections) if convinced that it was a viable option, and not just a wasted protest vote that might result in the greater of two evils prevailing.

      Most Democrats are not Marxists; but they fear the agenda of the Piously Correct activists on the Right more, so they hold their nose and vote for their Party, even though the insufferable Politically Correct activists set its agenda. Most Republicans are not Christian fundamentalists; but they fear the agenda of the Politically Correct activists on the Left more, so they hold their nose and vote for their Party, even though the insufferable Piously Correct activists set its agenda. Both are the natural constituency of a libertarian oriented Party, promoting individual Liberty and proper federalism.

      Needless to say, the vast majority of the ever-increasing number of independents and swing voters, would love such an alternative. The most difficult task will be to convince enough centrists to take the implied risk of wasting a vote, for the uncommon opportunity to vote ‘for’ a candidate, instead of ‘against’ the more onerous one offered up by the duopoly. This is why it will take time; but we can’t keep putting off starting the movement, because the oligarchy has convinced us once again that making the move will just assure the election of the devil incarnate.

      Remember, if everyone who wanted to vote for Perot had done so, he would have won the election. Both wings of the Incumbrepublocrat duopoly pulled out all the stops demonizing him; but at the end of the day, it was the incessant ‘wasted vote’ mantra that saved the day for Clinton. It is one of their most powerful weapons, and we would do well to spend some time and effort cogitating and strategizing on how to overcome it. Any clever ideas? ◄Dave►

  6. Just read this NYT piece about Hillary. Maureen Dowd really has broken up with the Dems. I posted the link though because I found the comments so interesting (I should read liberal sites more often I guess to truly take the nation’s pulse). Lots of Hillary criticism in a very civil tone (not bashing, but reality checks). Maybe we aren’t quite doomed. Maybe with the perfect candidate (not Donald Trump), we could win over 10% of indies who are thoroughly disgusted with this liberal travesty and stand a chance at sanity again.

    • The only thing Hillary is teed up for is a letdown. She really doesn’t have the kind of support the beltway wishes she did. I can see that she’s nothing but a shrill angry woman of few accomplishments and little political capitol. She is grossly unqualified unless sleeping with a former president somehow confers that on you. In that case I would gladly vote for any one of his other fancies including Monica. She did absolutely NOTHING as a senator. No this time around I hope the American people are a bit smarter after a double burning.

      • Her biggest failing, besides abject incompetence, is that she is so damn transparent. Bill & Barack are both accomplished liars; but she couldn’t pull off a bluff in a poker game if her purse depended on it. Her ‘tells’ are like a slot machine announcing a jackpot. People see right through her, and nobody trusts her. All ambition and no substance. ◄Dave►

        • Ei uutisia teistä pitkään, osutattuioi huonosti. . . . Kaihertaa Ai? Hyvät ihmiset murehtia. . . . [ ] Musta jade kylmä Re: March 25th, 2009 at 00:10 Pieniä vaivoja tauti ~ Koko Äitini hyvin huolissaan ~ [ ]

  7. Wishful thinking choir discussion heavily influenced by years of Clinton hate. No matter how hard you’all search for reasons why she won’t win, she is as certain a victor as I have seen in my lifetime. Looking at the big picture the machine is well-oiled and putting together an picture of competence enough in advance that she will weather all attacks.

    Combine that with the incredible self-destruction of the GOP, this will be the most overwhelming Presidential wipe-out since my fellow Arizonian Barry Goldwater got his butt kicked.

    • Three years out Larry any speculation is pretty much wishful thinking. I’m sticking to my original prediction that the GOP nominee will be a very right leaning (but not quite “tea party” right) libertarian sympathetic candidate from the shadows. Somebody nobody is talking about.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *