Conservative Schism

One of the few pleasures of being libertarian is you get to pick on both major parties. Whoever is in power is likely to abuse it. It's like watching a football game and perpetually rooting for the underdog. (The downside is you only win when there's a tie.) I say this, because a lot of bloggers (ie most political bloggers) are rabid partisans and like to sling mud over the fence. Me on the other hand, I like to sling mud at the biggest yard. It's true that I give contemporary conservatives a hard time, and also true that I enjoy deflating them some. But I want to explain that my reasons for it are not that I universally despite Republicans and advocate Democrats. What I want most is for there to be a balance of power and a consensus government. I'd also like to see more traditional conservatism, though I'm not holding my breath. In the meantime, yes, I'm happy when the paper trail finally catches up with people who abuse power. Abusers and criminals don't deserve to be our leaders. And I'm happy when people stop regurgitating talking points, take off the blinders, and assess for themselves the actual state of the union. Like it says up top: "You think for yourself." I think a lot of the contemporary conservatives issues stem from the fact that some of them are waking up and starting to think for themselves.

Without further ado here's a funny tidbit with respect to the rift between old-school conservatives (fiscal) and the evangelical wing (social): (via Carpetbagger)

Uber-activist Grover Norquist has driven the right-wing agenda for many years, all the while pushing legal and ethical envelopes, enraging Democrats with some of the most inflammatory rhetoric imaginable, and viciously attacking anyone who gets in his way. In many Republican circles, this makes Norquist a hero.
But Norquist is not untouchable. In fact, some of his recent political outreach efforts have led to bitter criticisms from some of Norquist's own right-wing allies. You'll never guess why.
....
The Texas Eagle Forum called Norquist's presence at the gay Republican group's fundraiser "traitorous," adding, "If he was a serious economic conservative, Grover Norquist would not have accepted the invitation or the honorarium for speaking at a fund-raiser for a group bent on the destruction of traditional families."

Now I confess, I don't know the first thing about Norquist. But I do think it's hillarious that "a serious economic conservative" can't talk to homosexuals. Hello people. Even I know that homosexuality is a social conservative issue, not an economic conservative one. These stories in which one conservative blasts another conservative for talking to a third conservative really make me wonder...
Q: How did these people come to be on the same team?
A: The enemy of my enemy is my friend?
Another argument for the Dems to go Truman Doctrine.