Further proof "conservatives" don't get it

I frequently receive email advertisements from NewsMax.com.  It's what happens when you don't pay attention to checkboxes when you "register" for a website.  I could unsubscribe.  But then I'd miss gems like this.

It is remarkable that Theodore Roosevelt (TR to his friends), who has been beloved as an iconic patriot and president, would become a controversial figure today.

This unusual development is largely due to the rise of Glenn Beck.

Glenn has been right on many issues and his views are resonating with Main Street.

But he is wrong on one big issue: Theodore Roosevelt is not, as he claims, the root cause of President Obama’s intrusive, “big government” policies.

It is no accident that TR’s face is chiseled into Mount Rushmore along with those of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln, as he is rightly regarded by historians as one of the greatest presidents in American history.

As TR himself might say, "Balderdash!"

TR is on Mount Rushmore because President Calvin Cooledge was adamant that, in addition to the Father of our Country, George Washington, the monument must include two additional Republicans and one additional Democrat.  Since Republican Presidents not named Reagan have been uniformly dreadful, TR was settled upon as the second Republican, the tyrant Abraham Lincoln being the first.

Notice that the two Democrats chosen for the monument had been dead in the neighborhood of 100 years at the time they were chosen.  You really do have to go back that far to find a Democrat who was worth a damn.

Back to TR.

I've been reading a book called American Progressivism.  It's a tough read; it mostly consists of the speeches and political writings of Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson.  Mr. Ruddy, TR was everything Glenn Beck says he was.  He may even be worse than Beck has alleged.  Roosevelt was actually proposing grander Fascist policies during the 1912 Presidential campaign than Wilson was!  While Roosevelt may not have brought about the world's first Fascist government -- that was left for Wilson to accomplish -- he was instrumental in setting the table for Wilson's abuses.

So why is Ruddy so adamant in defending Roosevelt?

A few words of disclosure here: I am an ardent Theodore Roosevelt devotee and have been a longtime member of the Theodore Roosevelt Association (the membership roster has me listed after another TRA member, Karl Rove).

And my brother, Daniel Ruddy, a historian, is the author of a new book called “Theodore Roosevelt’s History of the United States” (published by Harper Collins). It draws upon TR’s own words to construct a unique history of the United States based on Roosevelt’s colorful insights and provocative views.

Ah, now it becomes clear! His brother has written a "history" of Roosevelt. The word "history" is in scare quotes because we're all familiar with the kind of "histories" we get when authors with a predisposition to adulation for the subject of their work write.  They tend to produce slavering paeons that conveniently omit the subject's peccadillos.

Anyone who calls themselves a conservative but thinks that TR was peachy keen is no friend of freedom.  No one -- I repeat, NO ONE -- who loves freedom can justify the policies and pronouncements of this smug, "I know best what's good for you the sheeple" elitist a-hole.

Of course, that's the kind of disinformation we get from the Team Elephant mainstream these days.  Get used to it.  Because, notwithstanding all pronouncements to the contrary, this Elephant hasn't changed its spots.  It's every bit the Donkey Lite party in 2010 that it was in 2008.

The case for a third party

There is a particular litmus test I have for whether or not someone is serious about restoring this country to its former state as a Constitutional Republic.  That test is this: are you opposed to the creation of a third party whose purpose is to elect candidates committed to a return to the Constitutional rule of law?  If the answer is "no", then you've shown yourself to be yet another duped sheeple drinking that Team Elephant Kool-Aid.  I cannot in good conscience take you seriously.

Many blathering heads take umbrage with my stubborn insistence that the current political parties are totally co-opted and cannot be reclaimed.  They quote Ronald Reagan, who said, waaaay back in 1977:

I have to say I cannot agree with some of my friends—perhaps including some of you here tonight—who have answered that question by saying this nation needs a new political party.

I respect that view and I know that those who have reached it have done so after long hours of study. But I believe that political success of the principles we believe in can best be achieved in the Republican Party. I believe the Republican Party can hold and should provide the political mechanism through which the goals of the majority of Americans can be achieved. For one thing, the biggest single grouping of conservatives is to be found in that party. It makes more sense to build on that grouping than to break it up and start over.

Rather than a third party, we can have a new first party made up of people who share our principles. I have said before that if a formal change in name proves desirable, then so be it. But tonight, for purpose of discussion, I’m going to refer to it simply as the New Republican Party.

At this point they follow up with a rather childish, "See? See? The great Ronald Reagan said it! We need to stay Republican and save the Party."

There's only one problem with that illogic: Reagan failed.

For all of the accomplishments of Ronald Reagan as President, he was unsuccessful in his quest to fundamentally change the character of the Party.  Look at the last four candidates for President in the post-Reagan era:

• George H. W. Bush, Rockefellerite
  


• Bob Dole, Big Government true believer
  


• George W. Bush, Neocon
  


• John McCommie, RINO
  

That's not the slate of candidates a party espousing individual liberty and small government foists upon its followers.

"But Vulture!  The Republicans have changed!  They've really changed going in the 2010 elections".

No, no they haven't.  They haven't changed one bit.  You know how I know that?

• Michael Steele is still the RNC chairman
  


• John McCommie is being pushed by Party elites over J. D. Hayworth because he's "more electable"
  


• Party elites are still pushing for Mitt Romney to be the standard-bearer in 2012
  

Here's the rub.  We know that Team Donkey wants power to implement their vision of Big Government.  But the same is true of Team Elephant - they want power to implement their vision of Big Government.  Neither gives a rat's ass about you or your personal freedoms.

A strong third party will offer a chance for real change in Washington, if done correctly.  It can be a haven for small-L libertarians, small government conservatives, and independents, as well as for current members of Team Donkey fed up with the Fascist takeover of their party by the toxic 60's generation.

Perhaps even more import is the impact it would have on the two big Parties.  Both would be forced to move from their current entrenched positions - either further to the Left or drawing back to the Right - in order to attract voters away from the new party.  For the first time since Reagan, libertarians and conservatives wouldn't have to hold their noses to vote.  That alone is reason enough for me.

Think I'm full of it?  Hit me with your best shot.  I'm dying to see where you think I'm "wrong".