I came across a post on Big Government today talking about how the Republican party is overrun with moderates. While that is a silly notion - consider the obstructionist attitude and refusal to compromise - I noticed some interesting comments below the post that I found humorous because seem to confirm one of the author's theories - that "the party is represented by a majority of idiots."
Here is a prime example:
The video above was supported by many of the commenters on Big Government, but if you do a little research behind the video you find it is one ignorant mess. The video makes the clames that there has been a "Democrat onslaught" on the constitution, particularly leading up to the 2008 election with Democratic members of congress frantically trying to pass laws altering what defines a "natural born citizen," thus allowing a non-American to become president. This "onslaught" is supposedly proof that Barack Obama is an unconstitutional office holder.
What the video fails to mention is that Republicans also signed onto those very evil Democratic bills. One in particular, H.J. Res 59 (108th Congress), had just as many Republican co-sponsors as Democratic ones (Darrel Issa, Ray LaHood, and Christopher Shays).
Now why did I use this example?
Big Government propagandist Nick R. Brown, who claims he has "no agenda," wrote that the principled voters are being betrayed by moderates in conservative clothing, but he fails to entertain the notion that maybe those principled conservatives are really a bunch of ignorant sheep, and Brown wants to be part of the leading class. That is why that video above has over 800,000 hits and why so many of Brown's so-called principled followers believe in such tripe.
Let's go back to his assertion that moderates are overrunning the party and that Republicans of today are really neoconservative Democrats from the late 1970s.
Here is a definition from the far-right-leaning Wiki Conservapedia:
A neoconservative (also spelled "neo-conservative"; colloquially, neocon) in American politics is someone presented as a conservative but who actually favors big government, interventionalism, and a hostility to religion in politics and government. The word means "newly conservative," and thus formerly liberal. Many neocons had been liberals in their youth and admired President Franklin D. Roosevelt. In 2010 the highest priority of the neoconservatives was to increase military action by the United States in the Middle East and Afghanistan, and to expand it to an American confrontation against Iran; in 2011 their goals include supporting a military attack on Libya, continuing the Afghanistan War indefinitely, and even suggesting military action against Syria.Does this sound like any Republican you know? Consider every GOP presidential candidate (except Ron Paul) - even Newt Gingrich, who Conservapedia labels a neoconservative, sounds nothing like this definition.
Neoconservatives tend to oppose the appointment of social conservatives to high governmental positions, such as nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. Neoconservatives support candidates who are liberal on social issues instead.
Neoconservatives favor expensive foreign interventionalism with massive federal spending, often to replace a dictator with a new system of government that may be worse. Sometimes this is expressed as a desire to install a democracy in a culture that may be incompatible with it. The neoconservative position was discredited in the failure of democracy in the Iranian elections of 2009.
In contrast to traditional conservatives, neoconservatives favor globalism, downplay religious issues and differences, are unlikely to actively oppose abortion and homosexuality. Neocons disagree with conservatives on issues such as classroom prayer, the separation of powers, cultural unity, and immigration. Neocons favor a strong active state in world affairs. Neocons oppose affirmative action with greater emphasis and priority than other conservatives do.
Every candidate has attacked big government spending and has proposed a series of cuts, whether in the form of regulation, elimination of certain governmental departments, or the reversal of policies and appointments made under the current administration. In addition, every candidate has proposed some form of tax cut and limit on government spending.
Every candidate has tried to infuse their Christianity in their campaign, whether it is to discuss their morality (Mitt Romney's lengthy marriage to one woman), attack same-sex marriage (despite having many failed marriages of their own), or profess a hatred for Roe v. Wade and abortion (using their ill child as a campaign staple and despite the fact that their wife had had an abortion).
Seemingly every candidate has attacked "activist judges," and if you consider the rulings used as examples, you will see a pattern - they would only want conservative judges in place, and if you are Newt Gingrich, arrest all others.
And while it gets a little more complicated when it comes to foreign intervention, just look at the sister site of Nick Brown's blog site - Big Peace - which is highly interventionist. Brown has also served for non-profits like The Heritage Foundation, which strangely supports various interventionist attitudes - just look at their positions regarding Israel. Is Nick Brown pretending to be a conservative like those he criticizes?
Basically, if you look at the definitions this conservative site gives to neocons and traditional conservatives, every candidate (and teabaggers and a vast majority of Republicans in congress) espouse a traditionally conservative ideology, and because of the rise of the Tea Party and their highly motivated voters, many moderates were pushed out of the party or voted out of office.
So what is Nick Brown's motives? He claims he has no agenda but he spends a lengthy amount of time complaining about how "RINOs" have taken over the party and then fabricates a message that the political spectrum is continually shifting to the left. Sounds to me like he has an agenda.