Some Republicans (and Democrats) Will Still Stand for Principle

I was encouraged today to see that some Republicans (and Democrats) will still stand up and vote on principle. Or more likely they were afraid of facing the wrath of their constituents come November. Democrats voted 140-95 in favor of the bailout bill (HR3997), and Republicans opposed the measure 133-65. See how your representative voted here. It's too bad those same Republicans won't stand for a non-interventionist foreign policy as well.

The wanker Hugh Hewitt actually blamed the failed bill on Nancy Pelosi. Apparently he is unable to comprehend the numbers cited above. Either that, or Hewitt is right and the Republicans are so small and petty that they voted no just to spite Pelosi in response to her partisan speech before the vote. If Pelosi is actually responsible, then thank you Ms. Pelosi.

Regarding standing on principle, Daniel Larson of the American Conservative blog Eunomia says it best, "It is easy to talk about principle when there is no crisis happening and no risk attached to standing on principle. The real test comes when holding fast may actually cost something. Holding to a principle, if it means anything, means that you value it more than mere self-interest, satisfaction or comfort. A lot of Americans want to have it all–the pretense that they are free, with none of the responsibilities or dangers that go with it. In reality, you can either have the latter and remain free, or you can cease being free and then be kept free (temporarily) from responsibility and danger."

The political label 'Conservative' no longer has any mean since so many so-called "conservatives" (e.g., Hewitt, Kristol, editorial staff at National Review, etc.) are willing to embrace socialism and abandon the free market system as long as their 401K does not take a hit.