While all good conservatives were out conceding that the GOP needs to become more moderate in national elections, an extreme right wing leader at a major speech in Washington insisted the GOP lost because it wasn’t conservative enough:
I don ‘t know about you, but I am impatient with those Republicans who after the last election rushed into print saying, “We must broaden the base of our party”—when what they meant was to fuzz up and blur even more the differences between ourselves and our opponents.
It was a feeling that there was not a sufficient difference now between the parties that kept a majority of the voters away from the polls. When have we ever advocated a closed-door policy?…
Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?
The major figure then doomed his own political chances by sending an anti-moderate message and suggesting a course which, according to thousands of media wisemen, can only lead to disaster for the Republican Party. :
A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers.
I do not believe I have proposed anything that is contrary to what has been considered Republican principle. It is at the same time the very basis of conservatism. It is time to reassert that principle and raise it to full view. And if there are those who cannot subscribe to these principles, then let them go their way.
At a time when the GOP needs more members not less, this “leader” suggested shrinking the party. No doubt this leader’s failure to follow the party line will doom him as well as anyone who follows him.
By the way. The name of this leader?
Ronald Reagan. And the election he was speaking of? The Disastrous 1974 mid-term elections. Funny how history repeats itself.
Contrary to what Newt said
Scope Friday, January 9th at 10:22AM EST (link)Reaganism is not dead, it is gaining a whole new life. With a committed Conservative leader like Ken Blackwell, the GOP would once again be the party who believes in the shinning city on the hill. No squishes wanted or needed.
A Big Tent so big that it accommodates a Fifth Column would soon burn to the ground.
Martin Knight Friday, January 9th at 10:48AM EST (link)It sounds counter-intuitive. In fact, it is counter-intuitive, but I’ve finally come around to the conclusion that a significant number of our principle-free “moderates” and other “Republicans of Convenience” need to be shown the door.
As Reagan rightly pronounced back then in early 1975, numbers are not everything. Without a basic set principles, the ability and confidence to market them in every corner of the United States, and the courage to stand united in favor of those principles, numbers mean nothing.
Here's an analogy for ya Martin!
AceInTX Friday, January 9th at 1:32PM EST (link)Any engineer will tell you that a tent that covers to large an area without the proper supports to hold it up will collapse upon those under it!
The party needs to shore up those supports before it tries to make the tent any bigger…and then it needs to make sure those entering the tent aren’t going to undermine the supports holding up the tent!
House Conservatives Fund
Michael Williams for Senate
Toomey US Senate
SarahPAC
And another comparison to a movie
woodsman Friday, January 9th at 2:06PM EST (link)If you build it, they will come.
Without some guiding principles that address what the masses need or want they will not line-up behind a call to arms. They will just stay home and gripe. The cast of characters Martin describes above (RINO’s) need to be shown the door quickly so that we can get some good candidates who will stand on principles instead of going along to get along (bi-partisan like).
Yeah...the guy had to build a baseball field to attract baseball players...
AceInTX Friday, January 9th at 3:53PM EST (link)if he’d have just mowed down the corn to make room for all the non baseball players to come to…who would have shown up?
House Conservatives Fund
Michael Williams for Senate
Toomey US Senate
SarahPAC
Love the sheep and quote!
olsmithie Friday, January 9th at 4:53PM EST (link)nt
thanks nt
AceInTX Friday, January 9th at 10:09PM EST (link)House Conservatives Fund
Michael Williams for Senate
Toomey US Senate
SarahPAC
Haven't you hreard? Reagan is dead and we need to get over him already!...{/sarc} nt
AceInTX Friday, January 9th at 1:27PM EST (link)House Conservatives Fund
Michael Williams for Senate
Toomey US Senate
SarahPAC
Haven't you heard? FDR is dead and the democrats need to quit comparing him to Obama!
izoneguy Friday, January 9th at 1:36PM EST (link)n/t
“When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.”
Thomas Jefferson
good one - nt
Mike gamecock DeVine Friday, January 9th at 1:59PM EST (link)Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com, Charlotte Observer and The Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” - Andrew Jackson
LOL...
AceInTX Friday, January 9th at 3:58PM EST (link)Amen…Point is…they’ve won for 70 years by harking back to FDR…the RINOs want to drive a steak through the heart of the Regan Revolution after only 30…not only that…Regan wasn’t out of office yet before they were trying to Kill it…
Makes me nuts!
House Conservatives Fund
Michael Williams for Senate
Toomey US Senate
SarahPAC
Yep, FDR died way before Reagan
izoneguy Friday, January 9th at 4:39PM EST (link)So anytime the leftys say get over Reagan you say I will 60 years after you get over FDR.
“When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.”
Thomas Jefferson
Everything's Not Exactly Like Reagan
adamsweb Friday, January 9th at 7:01PM EST (link)The Platform of Reagan was made for the 1970s and 1980s and we face different challenges, so you can’t necessarily run on the platform but we can run on the principles.
good point...but truth is truth whether it's the 1970s or the 2000s nt
AceInTX Friday, January 9th at 10:07PM EST (link)House Conservatives Fund
Michael Williams for Senate
Toomey US Senate
SarahPAC
I doubt it
Doc Holliday Saturday, January 10th at 5:52PM EST (link)I watch this speach from Reagan in 1964 and realize how easily it would play today. BTW, this is like a monthly thing with me, I watch this and am cleansed again and ready to fight.
Molon Labe!
I listen to this one periodically: The Evil Empire speech
Mike gamecock DeVine Saturday, January 10th at 6:42PM EST (link)http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/ronaldreaganevilempire.htm
and he covers many more issues than just the USSR
Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com, Charlotte Observer and The Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” - Andrew Jackson
The "Big Tent" packed and left town
olsmithie Friday, January 9th at 4:52PM EST (link)I pray it never returns.
Moderates, let’s sit and talk, perhaps you need more information,etc. Perhaps I can sway you to the right.
But if you want me to compromise my morals and values to make you feel “comfortable”, don’t let the door hit you on the backside on the way out.
There is always a place for you once you have grown up, but I refuse to any longer give up my country to a bunch of squishes who are too lily livered to take a stand.
I really “moderated” this post from what I was thinking, I can only ask forgiveness for “moderating” anything.
Regards
ok I gotta ask, what exactly IS a
AKSteveB Friday, January 9th at 11:05PM EST (link)moderate as opposed to a “true conservative”? (I was thinking of doing a diary on this but I haven’t really fleshed it out yet). As best as I can figure out from actually looking at the issues, a moderate is a conservative who doesn’t have passion over social issues. In terms of economics and defense, I imagine that most self described moderates hold the same views as “mainstream conservatives” on most issues. In my own experience, I’ve never run across a moderate who wants anything close to a pacifist/defeatist national security policy, or wants bigger government. There definitely are some who are more focused on deficits than on tax cuts. What for example were the *POLICY* differences between Sarah Palin and John McCain, yet one was seen as RINO, one as “the real thing.” If you look at their records in similar spheres, they are really really close .. in terms of compromise with the other party etc. etc.
Given all this, the big differences are on style (refined vs. folksy, Main St. vs K St. etc.) and on social issues (religion in the public square, abortion, etc.). The style stuff is superficial. I understand everyone is venting now, but it isn’t a good idea for it to go on much longer.
In terms of the social issues, we all agree on Federalism. Again, assuming myself for a second as your average moderate ..whatever that means, I’m pro choice, I also think Roe V. Wade is an abomination, This is a union of 50 sovereign states, I doubt either pro lifers or pro choicers expect to influence abortion laws in other countries, we have no more right to do so in other states. I’m again of course only speaking for myself, but I think I’m fairly typical, I’d be happy for the ACLU to butt out of prayer at a HS football game in Texas while recognizing that it would be uncool in San Francisco, I think we agree on school vouchers which solves a lot of this stuff as well.
What am I missing?
Hell is other people - Sartre
I love it when you guys come in and ask how to define RINO as if there's some mistery
AceInTX Saturday, January 10th at 12:31PM EST (link)you stumped us for a while with that crap but that dog won’t hunt any more because it’s a very definable term of derision for those who fit the category…
[quote]As best as I can figure out from actually looking at the issues, a moderate is a conservative who doesn’t have passion over social issues. In terms of economics and defense, I imagine that most self described moderates hold the same views as “mainstream conservatives” on most issues.[/quote]
Well…you’ve figured wrong…
First Most RINOS such as Christy Todd Whitman, Arlen Specter, Warren Rudmand etc don’t just not “have passion” for social issues they are radically intolerant of those who are socially conservative!
As for their fiscal conservatism…their voting records are by and large more liberal that most SoCon legislators. There is Snowe Collins Voinovich, Stevens GW Bush etc! They’re the ones that are not just rabidly anti SoCon….some are SoCons including Bush…they’re the ones you see racing to vote for the $300 billion farm bill…and the $750 billion bank bailout, the multi billion dollar bailout of the auto industry and the UAW and are now scrambling to make sure they get as many goodies as possible on the trillion dollar plus “stimulus” package and cave at the first opportunity when they can slop at the trough of big brother government. They’re the ones who brought us the Prescription Drug Benefit Program, No Child Left Behind, and every other expansive government program that’s come down the pike!
As for NatSecCons let’s not forget Bill Cohen who bolted the Republican Party to become Bill Clinton’s Secretary of Defense…Chuck Hagel who took every piece of bad news out of Iraq and made it an excuse to justify out whole sale surrender in Iraq…
Spare me the…one person’s moderate is another’s conservative…it’s a load of crap…period!
House Conservatives Fund
Michael Williams for Senate
Toomey US Senate
SarahPAC
Simple answer...
mbecker908 Saturday, January 10th at 5:29PM EST (link)If you believe that the government can solve problems that are not related to national security and involve the Pentagon, you’re not a conservative.
If you believe that expansion of government in ANY area of life is not a crisis, you’re not a conservative.
If you can’t name at least five cabinet level departments that should be shut down and it’s employees forever barred from government employment at any level, you’re not a conservative.
What are you missing? Just about everything.
555
Doc Holliday Saturday, January 10th at 5:42PM EST (link)ATF, NEA, Transportation, Education, Interior and or homeland security.
Molon Labe!
i doubled with nea and education
Doc Holliday Saturday, January 10th at 5:44PM EST (link)both should be spade and neutered. I think if we read the constitution, we will se that most government agencies are unconstitutional. Oh, I got another one, Health and Human services. and lets go green by cutting the Congressional session in half.
Molon Labe!
Just for the record, AFT and NEA
Achance Saturday, January 10th at 5:53PM EST (link)aren’t federal government organizations and I don’t think either of them represent any federal employees. If they’re in your state, it is solely as the result of your state legislature’s sense of noblesse oblige.
In Vino Veritas
That's a great bunch Doc and here are some more....
JadedByPolitics Saturday, January 10th at 5:54PM EST (link)http://www.usa.gov/Agencies/Federal/All_Agencies/index.shtml
If it doesn’t deal with border security or military CUT IT!
Whoever has his enemy at his mercy &
does not destroy him is his own enemy
And start with Medicare, Medicaid, and Soc Sec
icbm Saturday, January 10th at 6:03PM EST (link)n/t
To clarify...
mbecker908 Saturday, January 10th at 6:30PM EST (link)I see folks wanting to zap agencies or eliminate departments that would likely have their responsibilities and people absorbed somewhere else. Not at all what I’m talking about.
First of all, see here for a list of Cabinet level departments.
Second, when I say “eliminate” I mean remove the Department, remove all of it’s employees, do not move ANY of it’s responsibilities to any other agency and reduce it’s budget to zero. I would also favor using all of their current buildings for artillery practice.
My choices:
And again, I would not just eliminate those Departments, but I would eliminate all of their personnel, sell all of their buildings (or use them for artillery practice) and eliminate all of their currently defined responsibilities from the the Federal Government.
Department of Labor's a biggie for me.
aesthete Saturday, January 10th at 6:44PM EST (link)n/t
Guilt is a rope that wears thin.
-Ayn Rand
“I am a freeman in a free state!”
-Last words of Dumnorix, chieftan of the Aedui, 54 BC
Let's issue each DoA employee a plow and give 'em 40 acres
JustLeaveMeAlone Saturday, January 10th at 8:03PM EST (link)Then they might actually produce something of value.
During 2008, I inherited a share in my family’s farm in southern Virginia, which we’ve now owned for five generations. Dealing with the USDA has been an education.
The latest “you have got to be kidding me; who thinks up this stuff?” communication was about a program to loan us money against the value of cotton, which is currently bringing less that the value of the loan they want to give us.
In other words, it’s some kind of weird price support.
We “bank” the cotton, and when/if the value rises enough to cover the loan, we sell it and pay back the loan.
I guess this is supposed to be helpful, but I cannot see the reason for it. If farmers overplant a given crop, the law of supply and demand kicks in: supply is up, demand is constant, prices fall. And farmers learn not to do that.
If farmers underplant, supplies fall but demand is constant; thus price rises. Seems simple enough to me.
But here comes the USDA making sure supply/demand doesn’t work.
And for environmentalists, lemme tell you that abolishing the USDA will save a rain forest or two all by itself. The paperwork is endless.
“To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.” Thomas Jefferson
The USDA is predicated on the notion that left to their own,
Achance Saturday, January 10th at 8:07PM EST (link)farmers will raise less Hell and more corn. Raising less Hell doesn’t help elect Democrats and raising more corn drives down the price of corn. The bureaucrats want to stop all that.
In Vino Veritas
USDA
Menlo Sunday, January 11th at 12:01AM EST (link)Who will perform, publish, and revise the nutrition analysis of foods? Food manufacturers, nutritionists, cooks, and consumers rely on the USDA nutrient analysis database. It’s generally the source for the other (privately-owned) databases out there.
“Guess which party these big insurance companies favor? Big companies love big government.” -Ann Coulter
Well ok, what makes you think I
AKSteveB Saturday, January 10th at 11:10PM EST (link)disagree about any of that. You just described economic conservatism. I mentioned that I thought the only difference was on social issues.
As an aside, the other legitimate Federal government functions are ..interstate commerce (in the REAL sense, not the 20th Century SC definition), at least some infrastructure (mentioned in the Constitution as “turnpike roads”), immigration, and treatys.
Hell is other people - Sartre
Moderates are perfectly welcome in the party
bs Saturday, January 10th at 1:32PM EST (link)Especially because there are some locations where, at least today, a staunch conservative cannot win.
They are not welcome to lead the party. That is the issue.
Decorum is fo’ suckas - unless it’s one of the good guys
We'll never lead the party anyway
AKSteveB Saturday, January 10th at 5:21PM EST (link)Leadership in politics comes from strong partisanship (as it should be). I do see where Ace and I are talking about different things. He’s referring to Specter, Hagel, Whitman et al. I was thinking more along the lines of McCain and Lindsey Graham. I have to agree on a lot of the disasters he just mentioned. To me it just seems like “true conservatives” bought on to the same stuff (bailouts etc.) I guess it comes down to whether you consider the majority of Republican congresscritters Moderate or Conservative.
My problem is with the title and maybe the thoughts behind it. Even if it doesn’t seem that way right now, the big tent is necessary, for the party, and really for the greater good. It isn’t that you have to cater to moderates, you just have to not lose them. I continue to not understand why federalism can’t be the answer to that on the national level.
Hell is other people - Sartre
OK...I don't know how much clearer I can make this...
AceInTX Sunday, January 11th at 1:59AM EST (link)If they signed onto the bailouts…they’re not true conservatives and I really don’t get what’s so hard to understand about that…GW Bush isn’t a “true” conservative either because of NCLB, TPDBP, Amnesty, and 2 trillion dollars and counting in bailouts!
As for your continued harping about RINOs only being applied to the non SoCons…I stated it plainly in my earlier post…Those that are the most anti SoCon in the party are also weak on the Fiscon leg as well and that is born out by their ACU ratings combined with the CFG scores…
RINOS are those party members who stray from the party line almost constantly and do so in an in your face with a thumb to their nose manner! They can also be those who go out of their way to be accommodating to the Democrats in every way and refuse to fight for any conservative principle! For these people…nothing is worth fighting over and everything is up for compromise and sale to the highest bidder!
I not only put Snowe, Collins, Whitman, Specter, Hagel, McCain, Graham, Voinovich and those I’ve mentioned numerous times before, (these are the in your face, thumbing their nose at us Republicans) I also include the perpetual accomodators in the bunch…these would be folks like McConnell, Lugar, Roberts, Lott, Craig, Stevens etc…Prime examples of these guys are Bob Dole and Bob Michaels and the bunch that brought us the 1996 elections!
It’s not debatable…it’s a simple equation amd I’m simply mistfied by the reluctance and squeamishness of so many to call a spade a spade!
House Conservatives Fund
Michael Williams for Senate
Toomey US Senate
SarahPAC
Anyone is welcome to lead the party if he
icbm Saturday, January 10th at 6:01PM EST (link)is willing to put the party’s principles ahead of whatever he himself believes. A conservative may be better equipped than a moderate, but no one, moderate or conservative, should be automatically excluded.
So icbm...
mbecker908 Saturday, January 10th at 7:07PM EST (link)You could be happy with Chuck Hagel? Or Specter? Or Whitman? or Graham?
Or, for that matter, McCain or Bush?
They and their ilk should absolutely be excluded. And ignored.
nope. but that's not the point.
icbm Saturday, January 10th at 7:49PM EST (link)or would you be happy with alan keyes?
Who elected Alan Keyes to anything?
mbecker908 Saturday, January 10th at 8:11PM EST (link)Can you name a moderate you’d be happy with?
how moderate does he have to be?
icbm Saturday, January 10th at 9:16PM EST (link)is j.c. watts moderate because he was considering voting for obama?
is gingrich moderate because he believes in global warming?
what about carly fiorina?
what about bill owens, national review’s “best governor” of 2002 who later put together referendum c?
if we define moderates as “republicans who piss us off too much” then i don’t have anyone for you, because anyone in that group would piss me off too much. (heh)
None of them...
bs Saturday, January 10th at 9:29PM EST (link)…and I include Gingrich…should be leading the GOP. They are Republicans, and I am happy to have them in the party, but they should not lead
(Especially Fiorina)
Decorum is fo’ suckas - unless it’s one of the good guys
We can't win a governing majority without moderates, esp
Mike gamecock DeVine Saturday, January 10th at 9:43PM EST (link)in northeaster states. The key is that conservatives lead the party.
And as to JC Watts, he is a rock solid conservative. His statements about Obama were all fluff, imo.
I don’t think Newt believes in MMGW, but I did excoriate him for his green conservatism obeisance to that religion.
I love Fiorina’s ability to debate on talk shows and make our case.
The idea that we would kick out all moderates is insane.
And believe me man, I have no truck for moderates. God spews out the luke warm. I am hot or cold!
But if we want to actually make policy, we have to have a coalition.
The point is that conservatives control policy.
Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com, Charlotte Observer and The Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” - Andrew Jackson
Evil Turns Unto Evil
OccamsRazor Saturday, January 10th at 9:48PM EST (link)There’s _ALREADY_ rumblings how Pelosi and crew is taking advantage of the inexperienced elect.
Pffft.
That is astounding - nt
Mike gamecock DeVine Saturday, January 10th at 11:23PM EST (link)Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com, Charlotte Observer and The Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” - Andrew Jackson
Expect Ego PushBack NT
OccamsRazor Saturday, January 10th at 11:39PM EST (link)EXACTLY, and I think that such an ego pushback gives the GOP
Mike gamecock DeVine Sunday, January 11th at 10:58AM EST (link)a chance to divide Obama from the left on occasion and chances to get better legislation.
Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com, Charlotte Observer and The Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” - Andrew Jackson
i can agree with that, devine
icbm Saturday, January 10th at 11:24PM EST (link)i would like to see a strong conservative party that is willing to allow for regional differences.
Are you dense or deaf?
AceInTX Sunday, January 11th at 2:07AM EST (link)The issue isn’t about regional differences nor whether we should kick anyone out or not…it’s about loyalty and discipline…it’s about adherence to principle…and as I, Mike, mbecker and everyone have told you over and over again it’s about who leads the party…who makes decisions…who sets policy…and who devises strategy…we are a conservative party and all of the above should be set by conservatives.
The squishes and accommodaters had their chance and we’re in the minority again! It’s time for them to get out from behind the wheel and let us drive!
House Conservatives Fund
Michael Williams for Senate
Toomey US Senate
SarahPAC
He's not blind and the word "depart" in the blog title connotes more than
Mike gamecock DeVine Sunday, January 11th at 2:17AM EST (link)just not driving!
He is agreeing with us. The reference to regional differences is merely a recognition of the fact that most drivers won’t get elected in the Northeast.
Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com, Charlotte Observer and The Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” - Andrew Jackson
Thanks, Devine.
icbm Sunday, January 11th at 9:58AM EST (link)That is just what I was getting at.
Ace came in from a long day kinda tired!
Mike gamecock DeVine Sunday, January 11th at 10:56AM EST (link)icbm, we are needed here! And I love being called devine!
Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com, Charlotte Observer and The Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” - Andrew Jackson
If I missread you then I guess we agree...
AceInTX Monday, January 12th at 1:24AM EST (link)maybe I’m the one that’s dense
:>)
I’m knee jerk reacting to the regional thing because that seems to be the fall back arguement coming form the big tent, squishy accommodaters now that they’ve been shown for the fools they are by McGoo and company.
Sorry if I got it wrong…
House Conservatives Fund
Michael Williams for Senate
Toomey US Senate
SarahPAC
First of all icbm, you didn't answer my question.
mbecker908 Sunday, January 11th at 2:52PM EST (link)Which was really pretty straightforward and, especially for me, not at all loaded…
Now, with respect to your list…
j.c. watts… I consider him to be a solid conservative. I don’t consider him to be guy who has the requisite leadership skills to herd the cats at this point in our collective lives.
gingrich… Great idea guy. Solid conservative. Not a leader in any sense of the word. He was on top of the world in ‘94 and crumbled in a heartbeat at the onslaught of the Clinton machine. The guy would be great in an administrative post where he was responsible for idea generation and had no managerial/leadership duties or expectations whatsoever.
carly fiorina… Just why would we want somebody who was an utter, complete, unadulterated failure as a CEO to lead the Party. She’s OK as a public face as long as she’s dealing with people who don’t challenge her “record” at HP. She couldn’t deal with the corporate wolves, she’d not last 15 seconds against the media and the Ds. I’d rather see Lincoln Chafee.
bill owens… I don’t really know anything about him so I’ll refrain from making my ignorance obvious.
Now, back to my original question. Without the parsing foolishness, name someone who YOU consider to be a moderate who is acceptable to you.
I simply can't put up with any more of this "moderate" foolishness.
George Claghorn Saturday, January 10th at 8:18PM EST (link)There’s no such thing as a “moderate” Republican. Back here in the Euclidian world, they’re called “Democrats.”
The moderates told us they wanted John McCain, and then once we picked him, they started ragging on him. Never ask people who can’t make up their minds on the most basic of concepts to decide who your party’s leader will be. And for that matter, don’t let moderates -be- your party’s leader.
Anyone who has ever openly admitted to having “moderate” Republican views has been crossed off of my short list for party leader.
“Victory comes, though we know not when. We must be happy warriors until the end.
For those of you who struggle with what goes on, who see retreat and capitulation, and who feel like not just your political opponents, but those who hold dear all those things you hold as blasphemous — be cheerful. Be happy. Victory is already yours.
You must just have the courage to not get discouraged and have the will to fight on.” – Erick Erickson at RightOnline
what about republicans like george h. w. bush?
icbm Saturday, January 10th at 9:17PM EST (link)was he a moderate? i’d say so.
was he a democrat? not by a long shot
GHW Bush was a raging success for us wasn't he? nt
AceInTX Sunday, January 11th at 2:09AM EST (link)House Conservatives Fund
Michael Williams for Senate
Toomey US Senate
SarahPAC
5^ (nt)
George Claghorn Sunday, January 11th at 7:25AM EST (link)“Victory comes, though we know not when. We must be happy warriors until the end.
For those of you who struggle with what goes on, who see retreat and capitulation, and who feel like not just your political opponents, but those who hold dear all those things you hold as blasphemous — be cheerful. Be happy. Victory is already yours.
You must just have the courage to not get discouraged and have the will to fight on.” – Erick Erickson at RightOnline
that's a different question
icbm Sunday, January 11th at 9:57AM EST (link)he was no democrat
Perhaps he wasn't a Democrat.
NightTwister Sunday, January 11th at 10:02AM EST (link)But he made sure the one who came after him was.
Get Connected in Colorado.
again, that's a different question
icbm Sunday, January 11th at 11:33AM EST (link)see the original point
Icbm you are missing the bigger picture.....
JadedByPolitics Sunday, January 11th at 10:03AM EST (link)What used to be a Democrat was a person strong on the military but big on spending on “social” problems…..think JFK and of course prior to abortion being legal a Democrat would NEVER have supported such a horrible act!
So President Bush falls under the old Democrat label because the NEW Democrat label is one of whining and crying and victimhood and I guarantee you that was NOT the Democrats of old that is a a 40 year decline.
The spectrum is quite different in 2009 than it was just 40 short years ago! when you think of right to left!
Whoever has his enemy at his mercy &
does not destroy him is his own enemy
i agree with the old vs. new democrat
icbm Sunday, January 11th at 10:50AM EST (link)distinction because so many things have changed - in an amazingly short time, as you point out. the loss of confidence in america is one of the biggest changes. the social extremism is certainly another. these are massive changes.
but some things did not change from old to new. read a 1948 campaign speech by truman, such as his speech in toledo, ohio on sept. 6, and you’ll see just what i mean. he advocates for big labor and price controls. doesn’t sound too much like george h. w. bush.
http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/1948campaign/large/docs/index.php
look also at his speech in dexter, iowa on sept. 18 of 1948, in which he rails against the “gluttons of privilege” that the republican party allegedly supports and protects.
these are just a couple example of the continuity of the “old” and “new” democratic parties.
Given the way things have gon the last 2 to 3 years Bush may well have given
AceInTX Monday, January 12th at 1:30AM EST (link)one of the Truman speeches you site….and during that time he might as well have been a Democrat for the way he’s governed…thus the term RINO…yeah he’s got an R by his name but tell me what he’s done the last three years besides the surge that could be called Conservative on any leg of the stool?!
House Conservatives Fund
Michael Williams for Senate
Toomey US Senate
SarahPAC
we're talking about george h. w. bush
icbm Monday, January 12th at 7:47AM EST (link)i agree with you about george w.
OK...fair enough...GHW Bush gave us the Americans with disabilities act...
AceInTX Monday, January 12th at 11:19AM EST (link)reversed many of Reagan’s tax cuts, and much more…I’d call him a RINO to for buying into Dick Darmen’s crap and selling us down the river!
House Conservatives Fund
Michael Williams for Senate
Toomey US Senate
SarahPAC
And with that I'll end the conversation
AceInTX Monday, January 12th at 11:23AM EST (link)I’ve been popping in and out sporadically and lost track of the conversation and what we were talking about…
House Conservatives Fund
Michael Williams for Senate
Toomey US Senate
SarahPAC
We're becoming extreme when Bush 1 is a RINO
icbm Monday, January 12th at 12:13PM EST (link)I can understand calling men like Hagel RINOs. It’s not clear how he’s Republican apart from putting an (R) by his name in order to win elections in his conservative state.
But if we’re willing to send George H. W. Bush over to the Democrats, then we are no longer interested in having a Republican Party but only a Conservative Party. But a Conservative Party composed of purists will never get more than 30-35% of the national vote.
Let’s be careful what we ask for.
This does NOT mean we have to approve of all the policies of George H. W. Bush. On the contrary, even a moderate Republican should not have signed the Americans with Disabilities Act! That was a clear error. But Republicans won’t have the chance to make errors if the party cannot reach a majority.
So what’s more important - keeping our hands clean while the Democrats become a permanent majority, or attaining office and accomplishing certain goals, even at the cost of making errors sometimes?
I’m as angry as you that the country doesn’t follow the constitutional interpretation and domestic policies that Pres. Coolidge followed. But it’s been 80 years. We have to have the right aims and principles, but also understand that it’s going to take many steps to reverse a lot of what has happened in the interim.
So let’s put up conservative nominees for president, and as many conservatives as possible for the House and Senate. But let’s not think we can get where we need to go without the help of moderates like George H. W. Bush. Until we can persuade the majority of Americans to be solid conservatives, we will need the help of moderates in the short term.
you are wrong, Papa Bush was a silly Rino
kyle8 Monday, January 12th at 12:28PM EST (link)It was not just the disabilities act, it was the uneeded clean air act, it was the tax increase, (remember he coined the phrase voodoo economics.), and the Quota Bill, and It was getting us involved in a war which wasn’t really our fight then failing to complete it so that we where stuck with the fallout.
He was a bad president, just like his son, and quite frankly if that is all we can expect from Republicans then I would just as soon let the democrats run the country into the ground. At least that way conservatism doesn’t get the blame.
I will NEVER, and i repeat EVER support in any way shape or form, ever again, a Republican candidate who is not a movement conservative or at least a fiscal conservative/libertarian.
No amount of fear or calling for solidarity will ever budge me on this ever again. And I wager I speak for a lot of people.
“Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty”
Kyle
And you may be right. We can differ on this.
icbm Monday, January 12th at 1:46PM EST (link)For the record, though, I am not calling for solidarity for solidarity’s sake, nor for solidarity for moderation’s sake, but for solidary for conservatism’s sake.
Obviously, you believe this is the wrong means to the end, but I want my proposal to be clear.
And you may be right. We can differ on this.
icbm Monday, January 12th at 1:46PM EST (link)For the record, though, I am not calling for solidarity for solidarity’s sake, nor for solidarity for moderation’s sake, but for solidary for conservatism’s sake.
Obviously, you believe this is the wrong means to the end, but I want my proposal to be clear.
No, they are not.
bs Saturday, January 10th at 8:59PM EST (link)The GOP represents conservative values. If moderates wish to participate in the party, fine. But a 3-legged stool conservative is mandatory as a party leader. Any potential leader who lacks sufficient credentials on ALL aspects of conservatism - fiscal, defense AND social - need not apply.
908 made the point perfectly via example.
Decorum is fo’ suckas - unless it’s one of the good guys
5 to infinity nt
AceInTX Sunday, January 11th at 2:10AM EST (link)House Conservatives Fund
Michael Williams for Senate
Toomey US Senate
SarahPAC
blurring the lines can work
Doc Holliday Sunday, January 11th at 2:54AM EST (link)It has worked for the Tories and David Cameron. the theory is that society hase moved so far let because of poor eduction, you have to go left too, but sound slightly more responsible. What we see in the UK is a party that has abandoned it root and gone “greern” All they need t win an election is for the voters to tire of Labour and see a acandal or two on the teley.
I am not prescribing this plan, but it can win if your sole desire is to gain office. In this country we have yet to accept a sociialist consensus, we are still fighting over that. The problem I see for this party, other than education/indoctrination is that we do not have any Reagan’s in waiting. OK we have jindal, and some think Palin (yesterdays news) but our Senate if full of the types that lead us into the wilderness.
I am worried about this party, it is not cool among the kids ,the seniors beieve we will take their checkk and as usual, minorities vote for those who want to keep them down to ensure their vote. the boder is a joke, fence or not, our nation is inundated by criminalsk, many of who vote.
It seem to me we have ony two chances 1) we get a Reaganescque firgure to lead us or 2) we fix education and hope man can learn frorm their forebearsl
Molon Labe!