|
||||
|
||||
|
Defeated liberal Republican Paula Pennypacker bashes Russell Pearce, other conservatives
December 19, 2010 by 59 Comments
Arizona Politics for Conservatives: Sonoran Alliance
Arizona Politics, News, Commentary and Information with a Blatantly Conservative Worldview Presented by an Alliance of Writers, Activists, Consultants and Government Insiders.
Support Sonoran Alliance
So Mrs Pennypacker supports the Dream Act!
This proves that many contributors to this list have “pegged” “The Packer”!
No matter what she says to woo Tea Partiers and consevatives, when it comes to action she can be seen as an Open Borders establishment “suck up”!
Look for her to be well financed when she again runs for office!
No wonder her “mentor” Honey Marquez wants us to ditch Russell Pearce and Rob Haney!
Carlist,
Your explanation of the “Liberal” Republic’s recent endorsement of ulta conservative Ben Quayle, Oh and sorry, I forgot to include it’s endorsement of Brewer, plus Editorials once to twice a week by Charles Krauthammer might be?
Sure looks like a Conservative paper, eh?
Dang, why no spell check here! I meant to say ultra conservative Ben Quayle……
I strongly disagree that the calling it “The War Between the States” is more appropriate that the Civil War.
I am very familiar with Calhoun however his ideas of nullification were quite contested and his belief in the right of secession was even opposed by many who accepted nullification.
I would still come back to the fact that this is completely entwined with slavery. The South would not have had a successful
agrarian economy had it not been for their ability to profit through slave labor.
Calhoun may have claimed high minded ideals, but the fact remains he believed in slavery as a good and believed other states needed to respect the “property rights” of slave owners, even to the point of forcing non- slave states to enforce slavery through the 1850 fugitive slave act which passed right before he died.
I do agree that there are parallels between now and then. In particular, parts of today’s conservatives seem to unknowingly understand the US Constitution as points actually advanced in the Confederate Constitution.
It is also quite unclear why you see libertarian ideals in Calhoun, et al. Slavery and forcing other states to enforce slavery hardly seem like libertarian positions to me. You keep returning to high tariffs but I really find little to support in people who are reaping massive profits from slave labor complaining about having their profits taxed at too high rate.
Finally, the post Civil War South certainly suffered as a result of certain federal economic policies, but these dwarf
in comparison to the losses resulting from the War and the removal of slavery as a prime economic engine, both in agriculture and the slave market itself. Add this to the massive concentration of property and it is no wonder the south remained economically stunted.
In the end I have never read a convincing argument of how one separates the positions of Calhoun and the like from defenses and justification for one person owning another. If this line of argument had won the day this would have have meant a continuation of slavery. That very fact alone should make anyone pause before embracing the position he and others advocated.
Don Williams:
Only a ‘died in the wool” lib would define Ben Quayle as an “ultra” conservative!
As to the Republic, try reading its editorial page throughout the year, and then opine about what side of the spectrum the paper resides!
It wasn’t the Brewer was so “right” that she got the endorsement. After all she raised taxes as both you and the Republic fought for, she brought back the state property tax and her staff is led by Grant Woods and Chuck Coughlin,, who would be insulted to be defined as “conservative” in any manner!
The problem that was presented to the editorial board lied in the fact that she was opposed by a rather pathetic three time gubernatorial loser.
Maybe Goddard would satisfy you, but frankly he’d go over with few others!
One of the “concessions” Lincoln would have made to preserve the Union was to permit slavery in the South. He didn’t exactly take the moral high ground. He certainly didn’t take it when he suspended habeus corpus, which is akin to suspending the Constitution itself.
One can hold that the South was wrong about slavery, but right about their rights as states. And that they were correctly understanding the Constitution when they resisted (eventually with violence) Lincoln’s understanding of the Constitution.
Please… how far to the left do you need to be not to see the AZ Republic as a liberal rag? How transparent.
Merry Christmas!
I find it very interesting that the debate is this blog is about personalities and not on topic. As a Tea Party first and Republican, only choosing the best of two evils, I suggest that many need to read the Constitution in its entirety not trying to interpret it but using only Webster’s as a source of interpretation and it becomes perfectly clear where our position should be as Conservatives. That is why the Tea Party will thrive and uncover those that pose as such and are unlike the Constitutionalist, which is the Tea Party!
Be afraid, be very afraid, if you a part of the Old Republican establishment!
SRA if you know who writes the seeing red arizona blog and it’s not Carol Turoff, pray tell who it is. It’s done very well and the writer deserves some kudos.