TexasCHLforum.com

canvasbck wrote:TAM,

While by and large I agree with your post, I have to disagree with a few of your statements. IMO, conservatism is about limited government, period. The downfall of the Republican party was from it being run by neocons after the Reagan years.

They started out pushing for fiscal conservatism while expanding the power of government to include legislating many moral issues. Eventually the Republican Party stopped the practice of fiscal conservatism and only recently regained the desire to cut spending and taxes after the Tea party rose to prominence.

The Party still has a desire for government to be involved in people’s daily lives to make sure they aren’t gambling on the internet, involved in a gay relationship, ect. This is NOT conservatism.(I'm not talking about abortion here, which is the taking of a life and goes beyond a "moral" issue.) The libertarians that are in the Republican Party (small l on purpose) understand that conservatism goes beyond fiscal matters. A government that has the power to intrude into an individuals life, even in situations that go against our religious and moral beliefs, is a government that is ripe for tyranny. I believe that a Republican Party that embraces social nannystatism is doomed to failure.

I will admit that I am currently a man without a party. I believe in the ideas of Republicans that are on the campaign trail such as a strong defense, free market capitalism, entitlement reform, limited spending, lower taxes. I wish that those platforms followed them after the elction.

I side with the Libertarian party when it comes to the Government staying out of our daily lives and only having the powers EXPRESSLY granted to it by the constitution (If the Libertarian Party weren't so weak on defense, I would probably be a "capital L" Libertarian).

I agree with Democrats on .........well, nothing.