As a conservative who would identify much with mainstream conservative thought, especially when it comes to foreign policy, I am ashamed that Ron Paul was the ONLY Republican candidate on stage arguing in favor of following the constitution. In fact, I see most, if not all of those candidates (perhaps with the exception of Tom Tancredo) offering more of the same big-government conservatism we’re used to seeing under George W. Bush. I mean, Rudy Guiliani started laughing at Paul when touting Congress’ authority in declaring war. Frankly, I became insulted by his lack of respect for constitutional principles and legitimate debate. Unfortunately, the only other candidate offering up ideas to protect our constitution who isn’t considered a fringe candidate like Paul is Senator Fred Thompson. By looking to states’ rights and federalism as a solution to many of our national political problems, Thompson has presented himself as someone who would consider federalism in and of itself, a solution to many of our country’s needs. Most of the candidates on stage last night seemed to be advocating stronger executive authority, especially in terms of war-making. In my opinion, instead of citing rhetorical nonsense that they would protect the constitution as president, perhaps the candidates should actually READ the constitution first.

Other examples of big-government conservatism among those who claim to be Reagan’s heir:

We see Mitt Romney offering tax cuts for, in his words, “middle income Americans” and those who make under $200,000 a year. I like Romney, but his economic rhetoric is just more class warfare in the same flavor offered up by Democratic candidates. He has also said he would enforce “decency” laws. Since when is it the government’s responsibility to regulate what is shown on television?!

Rudy Guiliani claims he would uphold the Constitution of the United States as president. How do pro-abortion (even taxpayer funded) and anti-2nd amendment sediments uphold what’s written in our constitution? Has he even read it? From last night, I really couldn’t tell.

Sam Brownback agreed that a federal marriage amendment must be ratified to protect marriage. First off Senator, marriage is not the responsibility of the federal government - it is a state issue only. I don’t remember anywhere in the constitution that says the Congress shall have the power to regulate the welfare of the family. Using the constitution as a catalyst for social change cheapens the respect it deserves. Wanna go change social policy? Do it through state legislatures, not through usurpation of federal authority.

Mike Huckabee suggested that those who want to build a border fence are racists. Since when was it racist to want to protect your country from illegal invaders governor? In my opinion, Huckabee has his head so deep in the sand that he doesn’t realize this country will be transformed culturally and economically for the worse if we do not do something to stem the tide of illegal aliens coming into this country. Maybe Huckabee should listen closer to Tom Tancredo, who suggested following the rule of law.

I know my post is a little short on specifics when it comes to exposing the hypocrisies of mainstream Republicans, but I see a distinct disconnect with what conservatives claim to support (the constitution) and what they are really for (executive usurpation of authority in wartime, bigger government, etc.). All I see is two parties vying for more government control over our lives and more government interference in our economy. Republicans are destroying our constitution for the sake of security. Democrats are destroying our constitution for the sake of socialism. Which is worse? They’re both equal because our constitution gets ripped to shreds at the end anyway.