Levels of Disagreement?

Last night about thirty politically concerned citizens met in Annapolis at the Maryland Republican Headquarters, to discuss formation of a chapter of the Republican Liberty Caucus.
Del Joe Boteler and Del Rick Impallaria spoke about: building the Republican Party, “all politics is local”, Churchill’s quote: “never, never, never give-up”, foreign entanglements, and the frustrations of being in the minority in a big spending liberal state. They spoke fondly of our Constitution and Declaration of Independence. Steve Wright, Harford County Central Committee and Rt. 40 Republican Club, mentioned that most patriotic statesmen and women would disagree on something.

He is correct. I disagree with the State Party’s inability to criticize the national leaders, attack their policies, and to make a clear statement that reflects the obvious sellout of our nation by both national parties, and the media.

I may have missed it but:
Has McCain been properly discarded by the Maryland Republican Party for his support of the $700 billion bailout?
Has the Maryland Republican Party publicly complained that President Bush has violated Posse Comitatus?
Has the Maryland Republican Party made a public statement about our loss of personal liberties, our foreign entanglements, and the constitutional problems with the Federal Reserve?

During our second round of introductions, I shared that three of my grown children came home to work the polls during the election. Each one confessed that the “Republican” label was a negative, and immediately ended most conversations. We need to converse, and talk about liberty is long overdue. “Politics may be local”, but when our national party: is supporting measures that contradict our principles, is not protecting your rights, and is damaging the good name of the state parties, where is the outrage?

Ultimately, the question for Ron Paul supporters, is how much disagreement can one withstand amidst the levels of one’s “own” party: national, state, caucus, and local?

Neo-conservatism?

A friend of mine, who is definitely conservative, and leaning toward our liberty movement, asked me to define "neo-conservatism"?
I started by explaining that it is when one professes to live by conservative principles, but in fact does not. He asked for a for-instance? So, I suggested to him a conservative's support of our foreign policy of empire building, vs. a humble foreign policy. He questioned Korea? Japan? I injected Iraq. He countered Afghanistan?
Then I suggested a conservatives support of "Foreign Aid": Redistribution of our wealth to a foreign entity.

Is there a clear definition of what a neo-conservative is, or how one thinks?

"Oogedy boogedy"? Cute

The following Letter to the Editor was submitted 12-08-08 to the Sun Paper in response to Kathleen Parker's commentary and Jim Maher's letter published in the Sun.

I entered the debate on the problems with the GOP, "Readers speak out: the religious right and the election," Nov. 29, reacting to Kathleen Parker’s commentary in which she blamed the dismal election results on the "religious" problem, "the evangelical, right‑wing, oogedy‑boogedy branch of the GOP". She revisited this notion in her Dec. 5th commentary,” Them Oogedy‑Boogedy Blues”, as she felt obliged to define this new word, “oogedy-boogedy” that her friend had coined.
My description that,“Ms. Parker’s attempt to blame the “great big problem, GOD”, for the Republican Party’s woes, is classic liberal sleight of hand.” caused Jim Maher to laugh “out loud”, and onto your editorial page, Dec 2nd, “Kathleen Parker certainly no liberal”. This response to my challenge of her "conservative columnist" label, generated some twenty comments on baltimoresun.com.
In reviewing Parker’s archives for the past few months, I see that Mr. Maher was partially correct. She is not a liberal, but she is not a conservative. Parker puts out about nine commentaries each month. Most, of them only flirt with conservative principles. They seem to be sarcastic, witty, personality and policy critiques, which stay well within the status quo. They do not challenge on true conservative principles.
In foreign policy, has Ms Parker spoken out against our presence in the Iraq War, or Condi Rice’s statement to the Council on Foreign Relations, that the U.S. is in the business of spreading democracy? Has she written anything against the Federal Reserve, or Congress’s dereliction of duty to coin money and regulate its value? I also failed to find an opinion attacking the unpatriotic Patriot Act.
Maher was partially right, “Kathleen Parker certainly no liberal”. She is a neo-conservative! McCain is what our media and the national neo‑conservatives arranged for us to pick from. When defending conservative principles against liberals or neo-conservatives, is there really a difference?
Michael Hargadon