Friday, November 21, 2008

Repubs and Conservs not same thing Matt Laur

I was watching the Today Show this morning, and Matt Lauer was interviewing Mitt Romney. I thought it was funny when Matt called Romney a conservative. I also thought it was funny when Romney did not correct him.

Here you have a man like Romney who pretends to be a conservative, when he is a republican. Lauer is assuming that what is republican is conservative. We smart people know better. We know that what is republican is not always conservative, and what is conservative is not always republican.

Now, I think Matt Lauer is an intelligent man. But he has no clue what republican is. And, is it just me, or was there a little arrogant smirk on the corner of Lauer's face during this interview, as if he were saying subliminally, "hahahahahahahahahahaha!!!! We WON!!!!!"

Well, just a thought.

5 comments:

Anthony Palmer said...

Freadom,

How can you blast Chuck Hagel for being a "Republican in Name Only" and then blast Matt Lauer for not realizing that "Republican" and "Conservative" are not the same thing? Are you saying that Republicans and conservatives are one and the same even though you criticize Lauer for suggesting this?

Chuck Hagel is mostly conservative. He's a conservative on defense and he's a conservative on social issues. He's a member of the Republican Party who is not averse to forging legislative compromises with Democrats. I don't see why that makes him a RINO. But I'm having a hard time understanding if you value Republicanism more than conservatism or vice versa.

One other note:

You also called McCain a "moderate" and a "liberal" in the same blog post. But he's also a Republican, so I'm not sure if that means he should be a conservative or something else.

Please clarify.

Freadom said...

Are you saying if someone is conservative in one or two areas that makes him a good conservative? If that were the case, then all repubs would be considered good conservatives. The truth is, Hagel is not a good conservative. He wants to make the party more moderate,which means he wants to make it more liberal. Well, that is not conservatism. If you make the party more moderate, you HAVE to compromise on key conservative issues.

Anthony Palmer said...

Sounds to me like this is one reason why Republicans lost the election. I'm not just talking about the presidential election, but also all those House and Senate seats.

Sticking to your principles is fine, but there is a large part of America that is not conservative, just as there is a large part of America that is not liberal, so it would seem to me that finding some areas of compromise and consensus is more attractive for the greater good.

Who would you consider to be a good and strong conservative? Elizabeth Dole had a 78.5 conservative rating, but lost in North Carolina. Saxby Chambliss has an 83.5 conservative rating and couldn't even win 50% of the vote in conservative Georgia. Nobody is completely conservative or completely liberal. Even the most conservative senator and congressman has supported bills that have nonconservative elements in them. Does this make them RINOs as well?

Barbara Boxer is a better fit for California than Kentucky, just as Rick Santorum is a better fit for South Carolina than Pennsylvania. Politicians don't get elected if they are out of step with their constituents. Their ideas may be wonderful, but voters have a right to reject them. Michigan has two nonconservative Democratic senators, for example, because that's where the electorate was on the Election Days that mattered. It doesn't mean that conservatism is not good; it just means that's not what the electorate wanted.

Freadom said...

I can't see how much more moderate the republican party could get than John McCain. He was the candidate the media wanted. He lost. Bob Dole ran as a moderate, and so did Ford. They all lost. Republicans must run as traditional Americans, as conservatives, in order to set themselves apart from the democrats and offer a viable alternative.

Nikki said...

oi...I have to agree with Anthony on this one. I think booting people out of the Republican party is the biggest problem in the party right now and is absolutely why the election went the way it did. You don't hear democrats deciding who is and is not adhering to true democratic ideals. Defining one republican as a purist and another one a RINO is ridiculous. That is how to lose moderates big time. Mitt Romney is conservative and perhaps because he is a "Mormon" and not an evangelical is what raises some problems. When Romney was younger and running for office in the liberal state of Massachusetts he stated that he would not change or infringe any of the current laws regarding abortion, I don't see how that makes him a sell-out...the man kept his word and at the same time fought against partial birth abortion which was a new law. Mitt Romney is absolutely conservative...the real problem lies with the fact that he is Mormon and we all know that a party dominated by evangelicals has no room for LDS people and demonize him an us as not being conservative enough or pure enough, and the biggie NOT CHRISTIAN, which is completely untrue...Sorry Freadom I think you are way off base on this one. :)N