TPM LiveWire

Conservatives Unveil 'Mount Vernon Statement' -- Declare That America's 'Founding Ideas' Are 'Under Sustained Attack'

Spread the word. Share this article on Facebook!

Share

The Mount Vernon Statement

Share

Twitter Fark Reddit Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

To email:    Your Name:    Your email:

It's not exactly "We the people."

Conservatives have published their "Mount Vernon Statement" -- which is modeled after the Sharon Statement of 1960 -- states that America's "founding ideas" are "under sustained attack" and have "been undermined and redefined in our culture, our universities and our politics."

The change we urgently need, a change consistent with the American ideal, is not movement away from but toward our founding principles. At this important time, we need a restatement of Constitutional conservatism grounded in the priceless principle of ordered liberty articulated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

The statement has been signed by a number of high-profile conservatives, including former U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins and Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist (who wrote this piece for Fox News about why he signed the statement).

Norquist wrote that he and other conservative activists will "cheefully sign" the statement today "on land that was once part of George Washington's Mount Vernon estate."

The signing will be held at the Collingwood Library and Museum on Americanism at 2:30 p.m. ET. Meese will lead the proceedings, which, according to the Mount Vernon Statement website, will be signed on an estate that "was an original part of George Washington's Mount Vernon real estate holdings."

It's actually a 4.4-mile drive from the actual Mount Vernon -- but who's counting?

Here's the full text of the statement.

The Mount Vernon Statement Constitutional Conservatism: A Statement for the 21st Century

We recommit ourselves to the ideas of the American Founding. Through the Constitution, the Founders created an enduring framework of limited government based on the rule of law. They sought to secure national independence, provide for economic opportunity, establish true religious liberty and maintain a flourishing society of republican self-government.

These principles define us as a country and inspire us as a people. They are responsible for a prosperous, just nation unlike any other in the world. They are our highest achievements, serving not only as powerful beacons to all who strive for freedom and seek self-government, but as warnings to tyrants and despots everywhere.

Each one of these founding ideas is presently under sustained attack. In recent decades, America's principles have been undermined and redefined in our culture, our universities and our politics. The selfevident truths of 1776 have been supplanted by the notion that no such truths exist. The federal government today ignores the limits of the Constitution, which is increasingly dismissed as obsolete and irrelevant.

Some insist that America must change, cast off the old and put on the new. But where would this lead -- forward or backward, up or down? Isn't this idea of change an empty promise or even a dangerous deception?

The change we urgently need, a change consistent with the American ideal, is not movement away from but toward our founding principles. At this important time, we need a restatement of Constitutional conservatism grounded in the priceless principle of ordered liberty articulated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

The conservatism of the Declaration asserts self-evident truths based on the laws of nature and nature's God. It defends life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It traces authority to the consent of the governed. It recognizes man's self-interest but also his capacity for virtue.

The conservatism of the Constitution limits government's powers but ensures that government performs its proper job effectively. It refines popular will through the filter of representation. It provides checks and balances through the several branches of government and a federal republic.

A Constitutional conservatism unites all conservatives through the natural fusion provided by American principles. It reminds economic conservatives that morality is essential to limited government, social conservatives that unlimited government is a threat to moral self-government, and national security conservatives that energetic but responsible government is the key to America's safety and leadership role in the world.

A Constitutional conservatism based on first principles provides the framework for a consistent and meaningful policy agenda.

* It applies the principle of limited government based on the rule of law to every proposal.

* It honors the central place of individual liberty in American politics and life.

* It encourages free enterprise, the individual entrepreneur, and economic reforms grounded in market solutions.

* It supports America's national interest in advancing freedom and opposing tyranny in the world and prudently considers what we can and should do to that end.

* It informs conservatism's firm defense of family, neighborhood, community, and faith.

If we are to succeed in the critical political and policy battles ahead, we must be certain of our purpose.

We must begin by retaking and resolutely defending the high ground of America's founding principles.

February 17, 2010

Late Update: And it turns out that not only is this signing taking place several miles away from the real Mount Vernon, but conservatives asked to hold their event there, and were denied.

Comments (99) | Join the Conversation!

Recommend Recommend (0)

February 17, 2010 10:37 AM   

"* It applies the principle of limited government based on the rule of law to every proposal.

* It honors the central place of individual liberty in American politics and life."

Unless you're gay, lesbian, or have a uterus.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 10:59 AM    in reply to MustangBobby

Or unless you're brown-skinned.

Or unless you're not a Christian. Born-again, of course.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 12:24 PM    in reply to EastWest

Yeah, religious freedom does not seem to include freedom FROM religion, does it?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 11:26 AM    in reply to MustangBobby

Or a brain capable of independent thought.

Or a memory good enough to remember that these same people were branding as traitors anyone who criticized George W. Bush just a few years ago, or that this same person - their standard-bearer until very recently - once referred to the document they claim to defend was a "goddamned piece of paper."

FAIL.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 11:31 AM    in reply to Steaming Pile

Imagine the outrage if Obama said that. We'd never hear the end of it from Fox News.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 2:53 PM    in reply to MustangBobby

And by limited government they mean they posses the exclusive right to double the national debt in eight years but limit the right of anyone else to call them on their hypocrisy.

Ever notice how they only drag this shit out in years the Democrats control the White House: Contract with 'Merica in 1994, and now this turd sandwhich in 2010?

Just another election year stunt by the party that refuses to govern.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 10:48 AM   

Yes, let us regress towards that 3/5s of a person thingee and only white presidents.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 10:50 AM   

"It reminds economic conservatives that morality is essential to limited government"
- Exactly the point that they miss. If everyone was always moral in business (thought about others in their economic endeavors equally with their own bottom line) conservative economic principals might actually work. But, the fact is people don't always do that. So, we need a referee like government.

"social conservatives that unlimited government is a threat to moral self-government"
- Don't social conservatives WANT unlimited government to tell everyone else what their morals should be?

"and national security conservatives that energetic but responsible government is the key to America's safety and leadership role in the world."
- What the hell does that even mean? Does "energetic" mean "stick our nose is every other county's business"?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 12:45 PM    in reply to LeaningLeft

"If everyone was always moral in business (thought about others in their economic endeavors equally with their own bottom line) conservative economic principals might actually work. But, the fact is people don't always do that."

Exactly. Nicely put, LeaningL.

The fact is, the Cons need people to be moral and ethical for their ideas to work. But given that when given the opportunity the rich and powerful will always run roughshod over the weak and powerless, regulations are necessary to maintain fairness.

Oh, and I like the part where the Cons say they are for individual entrepeneurship. Does that mean they are going to fight against corporate personhood? I doubt it.


Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 10:52 AM   

Limited government? It sounds to me that they're advocating keeping Roe v. Wade intact forever, legalizing drugs, abolishing DADT, and legalizing same-sex marriage - what's not to like? Unless, of course, I'm reading this wrong...

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 1:05 PM    in reply to Jack of All Tirades

Well, "true conservatives," aka Libertarians, do advocate those things. But, the current main-stream bastardization of conservatism, of course, does not.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 10:55 AM   

It's only 'small government' when it's something they don't want. Otherwise they're perfectly happy to throw you in jail without trial, bug your phone without warrant, tell you who you can sleep with, etc.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 10:56 AM    in reply to leoklein

Well screw that - I thought these people came here to (tea)party!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 10:58 AM    in reply to leoklein

Well screw that - I thought these people came here to (tea)party!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 10:57 AM   

What a bunch of say nothing blather.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 11:08 AM   

* It supports America's national interest in advancing freedom and opposing tyranny in the world and prudently considers what we can and should do to that end.

Unless a country happens to sitting on an ocean of oil, in which case let's just make up a reason to invade and occupy it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 11:15 AM   

So.....

can I buy a Hispanic slave - or am Iimited to black people?????

And now that only landowners can vote, can we safely assume that 99% of teapartiers no longer get to cast ballots - most trailers being on rented lots??

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 1:53 PM    in reply to GayIthacan

Ouch! Great point!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 3:23 PM    in reply to GayIthacan

And shouldn't someone remind them that people were put in public stocks for adultery.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 11:22 AM   

So much sound sound and fury signifying nothing.
Newtie got his new and shinny marketing trinket though: "Constitutional conservative".

BTW: Original Sharron Statement was only about 4-5 sentences.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 11:28 AM   

Surely they set it to music, didn't they? I think Lee Greenwood is available.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 11:37 AM   

What a waste of parchment.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 11:39 AM   

ANOTHER piece of holier than thou phony crap from the self-righteous voted twice for lying ass war startin' torturing wiretapping CIA agent outing 'don't care about bin Laden' pet goat book reading Katrina birthday partying surplus blowing off budget war mismanager Saddam-getter George W. Bush?

Conservatives, no one with a functioning brain can take you seriously!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 1:06 PM    in reply to NobleCommentDecider

whoop! mark that

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 11:45 AM   

This Michael Lind article is interesting in light of this call for a return to the principles of the founders --- when conservatives were tories.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/feature/2010/02/15/american_political_culture

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 11:57 AM    in reply to ericf

That article is such garbage it's worth even less than the parchment we're looking at here.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 11:46 AM   

Founding ideas -- like the US Census?

"Constitution of the United States, Article 1, Section 2: "The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.""


Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 11:48 AM   

Is torture a founding principle?

George Washington is rolling in his grave at what these evil torturing thugs have done to his country.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 11:52 AM   

Is it just me or did they channel Kodos from "The Simpsons" for a minute there? "We must move forward, not backward; upward, not forward; and always twirling, twirling, twirling towards freedom!"

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 11:57 AM    in reply to TheGreenMiles

"Abortions for some, little American flags for the rest."

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 11:54 AM   

Yet they probably support a candidate who couldn't name a Founding Father.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 12:03 PM    in reply to Rich in NJ

Good idea for an ambush: Ask one of these clowns to quickly take sides in a founding father's debate. Say, whether they side with Hamilton or Madison on the question of federalism.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 12:27 PM    in reply to AnswerFrog

Wait a minute, are you suggesting that the 'founding fathers' did not share a singular vision of government's role in society?! But Sarah Palin loves ALL of them!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 1:28 PM    in reply to AnswerFrog

What I find both sad and amusing...

Among the great debates, travails, hardships in making philosophy into policy, etc that the founding fathers faced --

Modern conservatism has somehow managed take the wrong side, learn the wrong lessons, dumb down what were and still are considerable questions to such an extent that it's mind-numbing.

I mean, I think any historian will tell you that George Washington was a bit of a dandy and self-promoter and more than a bit devious... but I, like most Americans, are in awe of him because he set the precedent that our national leader would be a "President", not a king - and in virtually everything he did, forming the first cabinet, dealing with domestic and foreign policy - remained ever-cognizant that he would be setting the tone for the nation well beyond his time.

Strip away the seriousness with which Washington approached the office, the circumspect and forward-looking way he addressed governing, and the real bipartisanship/consensus building Washington employed... what do you have? George W Bush.

Take the walking contradiction of Jefferson, who feared concentration of power and was in many ways relative to his time, something of a populist radical... only to find issues from his Presidency required him to go against every fiber of his philosophical being... Strip away the weightiness he really gave to things like federalism vs. state's rights -- you have Jim DeMint.

Strip away Alexander Hamilton's sound sense of national economics and the importance of an orderly monetary system and policy -- and leave only opposition to taxes, you've got Grover Norquist.

Up and down the line, modern conservatives have seized on the worst of our founding fathers.

Our founding fathers were human - they were not gods and they were not perfect. They made mistakes, they certainly faced their own sins of ambition and stubbornness at times. What made them worthy of our praise, even 200 years on, is the amazing way that approached these issues with such seriousness and more often than not, overcame even their own faults to set the stage for us.

I think it's good that we can honestly examine the founding fathers for their faults. When we make them into cartoon superheroes, we limit what we can and should learn from them.

What drives me nuts about these morons like Meese, Norquist, and the rest of the teabagging set is they seem to have made the almost conscious decision to toss aside what made the founding fathers great men, and instead -- embrace the very things that were their biggest obstacles to greatness.

A fringe factional group wanting to use Mt Vernon to proclaim an ideologically driven (and vapid, to boot) interpretation of the Declaration and Constitution?

Cripes... Washington -- the man who warned against the dangers of parties and partisanship in his farewell address -- would have mounted his horse, Nelson and ridden them down like grass.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 11:55 AM   

* It applies the principle of limited government based on the rule of law to every proposal.

Ok. No one on either party will deny this.

* It honors the central place of individual liberty in American politics and life.


Again. Who will argue this? How is this a "conservative" principle?

* It encourages free enterprise, the individual entrepreneur, and economic reforms grounded in market solutions.

Hm. Interesting. There is nothing in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution that mentions free markets, entrepreneurs or free enterprise.

* It supports America's national interest in advancing freedom and opposing tyranny in the world and prudently considers what we can and should do to that end.


Again, nothing in the constitution that mentions any of this. In fact, the founding fathers were big time isolationists if I am not mistaken.

* It informs conservatism's firm defense of family, neighborhood, community, and faith.

Again, nothing in the constitution about any of this. What hole of their body are they pulling this out of.

So good job TeaBaggers. 2/5 ain't bad for people with no university education anyway.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

slb

user-pic

February 17, 2010 3:51 PM    in reply to OxamzRazor

In fact, the founding fathers were big time isolationists if I am not mistaken.

Well, certainly George Washington was, or at least had the sense to realize that the fledgling nation had enough to do to put itself on a firm footing and did not have resources to spare to engage in foreign quarrels. And in a larger context, it is important to remember that they lived in an era when European nations had been engaging in wars with one another almost continually for centuries (a little like today's Middle East, or Africa), and Americans for the most part wanted no parts of it. They had their own continent to conquer.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 12:02 PM   

"The conservatism of the Constitution limits government's powers but ensures that government performs its proper job effectively. It refines popular will through the filter of representation. It provides checks and balances through the several branches of government and a federal republic."

Umm...? See the 8 years under Bush. Yeah, the Florida election, Katrina, Iraq, NCLB, torture, wiretapping...

This country would have to be fucking insane to let these assholes back in, in 2010.


Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 12:04 PM    in reply to AndrewT

By their own standards to boot!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 12:03 PM   

What a bunch of totally meaningless doubletalk. To paraphrase Mr. Jinks the cat in a Hanna Barbara cartoon about two mice named Pixie and Dixie: "I hate (read:find absurdly opaque) those Meeses to pieces."

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 12:05 PM   

The conservatism of the Declaration asserts self-evident truths based on the laws of nature and nature's God. .

WOW, talk about absolutely clueless. For its time the Declaration was a RADICAL document. This entire document is nonsense.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 2:37 PM    in reply to eric the red

My thoughts exactly. The Declaration of Independence is the most revolutionary document in history, yet they say it epitomizes conservative ideals? WTF.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 12:11 PM   

Heh, when I saw the name it reminded me of the Port Huron Statement. So I guess they're where the left was 45 years ago?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 12:31 PM    in reply to MNPundit

They're where The Dude was 45 years ago.

(Big Lebowski reference)

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 12:34 PM    in reply to Morbo

That rug really pulled the room together.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 1:16 PM    in reply to Morbo

Yeah, but he was only there for the first, real, version. He had nothing to do with the sellout version that came later.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 12:56 PM    in reply to MNPundit

Grover Norquist in 30 years: "Well, I was one of the authors of the Mount Vernon Statement; the original Mount Vernon Statement, not the, uh, compromised second draft. You ever hear of the Monticello Seven? That was me; and six other guys..."

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 12:14 PM   

The Founding Fathers were no more all knowing than those that thought the earth was flat and the those that thought bleeding people was a way to cure illness. Over time people are supposed to evolve, learn and improve there surroundings. These idiots selectively manipulate doctrine to support their own aggenda. The founders had some good and important ideas, but there is no way they could have foreseen the time we are living in today anymore than we can predict all the challenges of society two hundred years from now.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 12:42 PM    in reply to xargaw

Note how they avoid saying Founding "Fathers." Who knew the GOP was so PC. How encouraging.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 12:19 PM   

The change we urgently need, a change consistent with the American ideal, is ... no change at all -- if you listen to the likes of Ed Meese, Tony Perkins or Grover Norquist.

And for all of these guys, everything's coming up roses. They're doing, just fine thank you very much, and the rest of you can get stuffed.

Their "Mount Vernon Statement" is pure conservative claptrap. It's the same pernicious nonsense these clowns have been spreading for the last 3 decades.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 12:21 PM   

"checks and balances through the several branches of government" sez the party that invented the unitary executive. (And don't give me the horseshit about how these assholes are anything other than rank-and-file Republicans).

They would as soon vote for a Democrat as a rich man getting into Heaven.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Sam

user-pic

February 17, 2010 12:25 PM   

I am convinced there are forces in this country that want a second Civil War. The T-bagger movement is the equivalent of the Boston Tea Party.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 1:39 PM    in reply to Sam

Try Shay's or the Whiskey rebellion... or later dunderheads like the nullification crew of the 1820s.... or the secessionists in the 1860s.

I suppose it's a good thing we don't like in a world like that any more -- and lord knows, there's plenty of bad one can say about an Andrew Jackson or even a George Washington -- but I almost yearn for the days when an Andrew Jackson would have settled all this nonsense by reminding these revolutionary separatists that on the other side of a very clear, bright line is a hangman's noose -- and that he'd be more than happy to do the hanging himself.

I'm not a big fan of Jackson, but let's face it... the man had a way of dealing with revolutionary malcontents.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 12:28 PM   

Why does this little prick Norquist have so much power?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 1:00 PM    in reply to Marinus van der Lubbe

Good question!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 12:29 PM   

That read like a cult manifesto. Seemed to say : so long as you agree with us, you got nothing to worry about. I noticed they said nothing of civil rights. They did mention faith, war and the free market . What about all the non-white and or non-christian or for that matter gay or female Americans? They seemed to gloss over all that. When this country was founded only white men were "real Americans". I'm not in a big hurry to get back to the "constitution", the constitution failed to grant rights to more than half of all it's citizens. Here we are 200 plus years later and Gay people have zero rights. Evan though they fight bravely for their nation and give their lives they are shunned. African Americans were sub-human until the 1960's, women could not vote untill the 1920's. These conservative "real Americans" never have anything to say about civil rights. They seem to see Americans as some kinda homogeneous group of neo-cons drunk on patriotism and high on Jesus and everyone else is the enemy.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 12:41 PM    in reply to Kuro

When are we going to change and support Civil Rights for the unborn?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 1:31 PM    in reply to SocialJusticeForAll

Never, because they haven't been born yet. Duh.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 12:30 PM   

What the Dems need to do right now is get out ahead of this, and respond by agreeing in principle and then passing legislation that really does re-confirm our Constitutional principles. I'd suggest, for a start, legislation that clearly establishes that a corporation is not a person.

How could the Republicans disagree with that, when clearly there is nothing in the Constitution that says a corporation is a person? Beat them at their own game!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 12:38 PM   

Wonder how Grover's goons would countenance these quotes?

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." Thomas Jefferson

"The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, and more selfish than bureaucracy. It denounces as public enemies, all who question its methods or throw light upon its crimes. I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me and the Bankers in the rear. Of the two, the one at my rear is my greatest foe.. corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money powers of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in the hands of a few, and the Republic is destroyed." Abraham Lincoln

Idiots and @ssholes, all of them.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 12:46 PM    in reply to mcjam

Grover would turn those two troublemakers over to Cheney for waterboarding.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

slb

user-pic

February 17, 2010 4:03 PM    in reply to mcjam

I believe both of those quotations are of suspect provenance. See http://www.snopes.com/quotes/jefferson/banks.asp and http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 12:39 PM   

Translation: Black man in White House. That ain't right. Sound the alarm!!!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 12:45 PM   

I can get behind the enumerated principles, those all make sense. I just can't get behind the notion that they're under attack.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 12:46 PM   

The new and improved Contract On America!!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 4:55 PM    in reply to gonzone

For you little commie ffer, not ON!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 4:57 PM    in reply to bluesplashy

They are trying to save you from yourself, don't be ungrateful!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 12:46 PM   

Their little manifesto is just more theoretical 'conservative' nonsense. Conservativism has been given many chances by the American public and has proven again and again to not live up to its claims of limited government, liberty or prosperity.

It has served the interests of a very narrow group of wealthy individuals and, as a result, fostered the rise of an irresponsible, corrupt and lazy oligarchy.

I think it's way past time to declare that conservatism belongs in the trash bin of such failed political philosophies as Communism, Merchantilism and the Divine Right of Kings.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 12:49 PM    in reply to Venerable Rinpoche

One more thing. These idiots tirelessly claim that they want to return to our founding principles. What they don't know is that our Constitution is the result of the failed Articles of Confederation. Our original government failed miserably because it was based on the idea of a small, weak central government. The current Constitution provides for a strong federal government.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 1:05 PM    in reply to Venerable Rinpoche

Remember that these guys are like a staph infection. You think they have been beaten, but they just keep coming back. If any of them had been the Captain of the Titanic the document would have been a re-commitment to proving that a ship CAN hit an iceberg and not sink. Unfortunately we probably won't be ride of this stuff until they all pass on or get too old to keep pushing.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 12:50 PM   

I like the part about TRUE religous liberty, but did I miss something? the word democracy is not mentioned, even once. also interesting that universities are singled out for special attention... how are religions, industry & the military immune from being undermined? & lots words starting with re (rhymes with revanchist, revisionism & reactionary).

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 12:50 PM   

Sounds almost exactly like the declarations of the confederate states when they left the union. The only difference is the confederates had the courage to state their reasons in specifics than the vague lawyer ease these cowards have chosen.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 12:56 PM    in reply to inniss326

In a sense, their disloyalty to the Union continues.

Funny how the true traitors who repeatedly tried to tear the nation apart pretend to be more patriot than everyone else.

Lose a single election and suddenly are talking about revolution and toying with violence.

Committment to democracy and the nation = FAIL

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 12:53 PM   

I love the "parchment" and quill pens in the graphic almost as much as the pompous language - pure patriot kitsch. I hope Ed Meese wears a powdered wig at the signing.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 1:14 PM    in reply to fishbrake

Those quills are Official Microsoft® Office™ clip art.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 12:55 PM   

George Washington would have chased these thugs out of his house with a broom.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

slb

user-pic

February 17, 2010 4:06 PM    in reply to jimbo92107

More likely he'd have picked them up and tossed them in the Potomac. Washington was a strong dude!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 5:03 PM    in reply to slb

Tall, handsome and redheaded too!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 1:00 PM   

This is so bizzaro world. So the guys who did exactly the opposite of the principles in this document are re-committing themselves to the exact opposite of their last 30 years of sustained effort. I for one don't listen to children who promise not to steal money out of my wallet for the candy the 2nd time. What a bunch of B.S.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 1:01 PM   

I hear Jane Hamsher is one of the signers.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 1:15 PM   

"It's actually a 4.4-mile drive from the actual Mount Vernon -- but who's counting?"

is that where Washington quartered his slaves? One of the founding principles of this country was that certain people only counted as 3/5s of a person and couldn't voted(nor could women). Considering this group of sleazeballs, I don't doubt that they'd like to return to those particular founding principles.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 1:40 PM    in reply to human

That is exactly what they want. They are Regressives. They despise FDR, MLK, and women. They want to go back to the good old days, the 50s, and they are willing to do whatever it takes to get there.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 1:33 PM   

What I found most hilarious about all of this...

These guys wouldn't have been riding shotgun with George Washington -- they'd have been part of the Whiskey rebellion.... and the founding fathers they claim to revere would have threatened to hang the bastards as traitors.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

slb

user-pic

February 17, 2010 4:09 PM    in reply to zonk

I suspect that a lot of them (the wealthier ones) would have been part of the group that packed up and headed to Canada or back to Britain after the Revolution.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 1:37 PM   

This is also "freedom from content". There is no content to this statement. It is nothing but warmed-over platitudes that every American is in favor of.

It's crap, and the Democrats should waste no time labeling it as such.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 1:37 PM   

That's all very nice, but our founding fathers are not here, and didn't have to live in the same kind of world we do. For example, the 2nd Amendment is all well and good for a world of swords and muskets, but awfully vague for a world of machine guns, grenades, and atomic weapons. The Constitution IS a "living document", and we can change it to help us live our lives better. Isn't that what it's all about: living happy peaceful productive lives? Our founding fathers thought the Constitution was a flawed document, and planned to rewrite it later once the country got settled-- it's not some holy relic, nor the word of god, just a set of rules and laws. I'm not opposed to the 2nd amendment, but "arms" SHOULD be better defined.

These "conservative values" are all well and good on paper, but (like the 2nd Amendment) they are very vague, and are designed to be interpreted they way these particular conservatives want them to be interpreted: "individual freedom" I'm sure does not apply to abortion or drug laws or sexuality (by the way, George Washington grew cannabis/hemp you know.) And how does something like national health care impact our "individual freedom" (in fact the LACK of health care has a far more serious negative impact on our freedom, as opposed to some magical free-market "choice" in providers.)

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 1:51 PM   

Talk about walking backwards. This is supposed to appeal to people today?

They are hiding their own highly radical agenda (overthrow of individual for corporate power, for example) beneath this seemingly anodyne blather.

I don't think this will fly with ANYONE, even their own base.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 1:57 PM   

People of limited intellect tend to rely on absolutes. It so happens that the constitution is not an absolute, so the TEA partiers rectify the situation by simply declaring the constitution to be an absolute.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 2:01 PM   

Well, you gotta give it to 'em, that they'er good with the stage-craft and the catchy phrasework. I've been reading you folks for a while - you seem clever enough. We need to offer something to counter the angry-old folks crowd. Brand this toward the young and the hip - the Starbucks crowd. We ain't tea-drinkers, we're coffee drinkers!

We'll form a Coffee Clutch!

Central
Organization
For
Federal
Equality
Enforcement

Communities
Left
Un-
Touched
Considered
Harmonious

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 2:06 PM   

I mean, in reality, that liberals are, and have been, losing the PR war. Liberals need to re-ignight the explosive power of their foundation - to motivate 'the people' with a defined and unifying purpose. It is as though once Obama was elected, all went home and forgot that CHANGE is a process, something that requires work and commitment.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 2:57 PM   

This will be anther scam to raise money with Grover laundering it as he did for Abramoff and Ralph Reed.

I'm starting a blog, I shall call it "I LOVE OUR FLAG.com", of course I will solicit donations to 'keep the message alive.'

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 4:34 PM   

Why can not these folks, and the Teatimers be audited by the IRS. If your political platform is modeled on refusal to pay taxes, does it not follow that audits are in order for all?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 5:23 PM   

ericthered and onecrappy nailed it. Strip away the word "conservative" or variations thereof, and the goals of this ridiculous document could be claimed by virtually anyone. But to assign "conservative" motivations to two documents that literally REVOLUTIONIZED the WORLD is so far beyond stupid the only way to describe it would heartily offend Sarah Palin.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 5:31 PM   

All right wingers, teabaggers and Republican loons...I have a request.....that you all kiss my ass! Your party is dead and will stay dead because anyone stupid enough to vote for any of you should just go ahead and KILL YOURSELVES!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 5:33 PM   

Oh, and as an African American female, I have no desire to clean your house, take care of your kids or be raped by you. If you're looking to go back in time, count me out!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 8:27 PM   

"Change is bad" was not the mantra Jefferson had in mind when drawing from the Enlightenment writings of Rousseau, Locke and Montesquieu to author the Declaration of Independence.

Furthermore, they basically say nothing in this document.

The real truth is that Republicans dating back to Nixon are all deathly afraid of going to jail should their massive criminality be exposed, and that is why they are so obsessed with keeping power and will do everything they can to knock the Dems out.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 8:28 PM   

This is an entitled statement for an entitled movement. They speak for no one but themselves and their white, male and well-to-do ilk.

http://www.sunstateactivist.org/ssablog

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 9:17 PM   

I'll sign it. What part of this statement is conservative?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 10:05 PM   

I wanted to get behind this, until I heard that Grover the muppet and Edwin the puppet were onboard!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

May 16, 2010 10:11 AM   

These "conservative values" are all well and good on paper, but (like the 2nd Amendment) they are very vague, and are designed to be interpreted they way these particular conservatives want them to be interpreted: "individual freedom" I'm sure does not apply to abortion or drug laws or sexuality (by the way, George Washington grew cannabis/hemp you know.) And how does something like national health care impact our "individual freedom" (in fact the LACK of health care has a far more serious negative impact on our freedom, as opposed to some magical free-market "choice" in providers.)

m65 kamagra

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Leave a comment

Your response:

Follow us!

Most Popular

TPM Stories Now Surging on