Donald...Wake UP, you are losing BIG TIME!


#21

I don’t know what this has to do with the Republican Party of late. These words “liberal” and “conservative” have become meaningless, at least to me. They are used as pejoratives and badges of honor; sometimes tied to one or two issues. The issues may be, in and of themselves, important but my head spins when people talk about liberal or conservative trade policy, for example. Take the constitution, there are liberals who support it and some who want to re-interpret it; conservative who support it and some who want to amend it whenever it doesn’t go their way. The line between political ideology and partisanship is blurred beyond recognition. And then all of these historical examples cherry picked to prove this or that, ridiculous. FDR didn’t have horns and Reagan didn’t have wings. Historical context is very important but it is all too often put into deceptive sound bites to “prove” something or other. I actually use the words “liberal” and “conservative” less than many posters here and I am going to make a point to try to never use them again.

Don’t know if this makes any sense to you or anyone else here. Take it or leave it.


#22

Yeah, Wilson and WWI were pretty much the turning points that marked the modern era of politics.


#23

I think you’re right so far but will have to give the matter some more thought.

Again so far I agree. But I think you’re too pejorative about Goldwater was up against, at least as it appeared in the relatively sunny world of 1964. The economy was apparently in better shape than under Eisenhower. Inflation was at a standstill and unemployment was dropping. The progress towards civil rights appeared smooth and so far, the only clouds on that horizon were attack dogs unleashed by governors in Alabama and Mississippi and civil rights workers shot and dumped into rivers. Malcolm X and the “black power” movement had not yet really bared their fangs.

Agreed, except that for whatever reason he made war on the liberal branch of the Republican Party, primarily though not entirely from Northeastern states (think Charles Goodell, New York senator, and the former Alaska governor).

Ford was far from a dunderhead. He had to pardon Nixon if Nixon was going to resign and spare the country years of agony. In my view that c

That still leaves Reagan as the only conservative and even he started as a liberal Democrat. I just don’t buy the idea that the Republican Party is, or should be, limited to conservatives. I think it is useful as a party of good government. Think Teddy Roosevelt, Fiorello Laguardia, Rudolph Giuliani, George Pataki.


#24

And Reagan himself wasn’t a conservative by this forum’s standards. He raised social security taxes, he granted amnesty to illegal aliens, he withdrew troops after the bombing in Beirut, he appointed Sandra Day O’Connor and Anthony Kennedy to the Supreme Court, he got involved in exactly zero major wars, he advanced stronger EPA regulations, he supported the gun control Brady Law.

Even a few of these issues is enough for a lot of people to declare someone a “RINO”. Reagan has a slew of them.


#25

Rather than repeat what I posted back in April of 2014 on this EXACT same subject, I’ll just give the link: http://www.republicanoperative.com/forums/f10/would-ronald-reagan-rino-today-44588/index12.html#post664355

That post addresses Reagan being a “conservative”, the “amnesty” issue, Beirut, and perhaps the most revisionist thing in your post: " . . . he advanced stronger EPA regulations . . .", and a whole lot more in rebutal to your very mistaken notions.

It’s not that uncommon for people (you being the latest example) to hold these simplistic errors and misconceptions. They are taught in today’s schools, and you apparently have bought into it without looking closer.

Reagan was NOT a “RINO”.


#26

To highlight what your wrote

> On Beirut. What? One needs to be a neocon or a war monger to be considered a conservative?
Yes, around here they do.

> 1. With no clear mission (Lebanon was in the middle of a Civil War and any military intervention would mean “Nation Building” . . . and we all know how that works out.)
>
> 2. No defined enemy and in a country that, while important, was not of vital national interest to the United States.
>
> 3. Unless the overwhelming majority is willing to commit enough resources to achieve the goal.

And here you exactly describe Iraq. Something about 3/4 of the site not only support, but support strongly. And say Obama was was weak on, for following through with Bush’s timetable to withdraw.

Reagan was no warmonger, true. Especially when compared to Obama(much less Bush). And Bush is generally considered adequate, but not really aggressive enough. Most of the pro-Iraq people, wanted a war with Iran too.

I can point you to people like Paul Ryan and John McCain who have a more conservative track-record than Reagan, who are constantly called RINOs. If Paul Ryan is a RINO, Reagan was. But they’ve lionized Reagan into a fictional character that always did the conservative thing, and any example other wise is dismissed with a nice spray of cognitive dissonance.


#27

Of course it should. Conservatism is not one of 57 flavors; it’s a dichotomy - you’re either conservative, you’re liberal, or you don’t understand the significance. Which is where “moderates” fall.

Political conclusions and support for policy SHOULD come from a governing philosophy. Either one supports individual liberty, or one believes in the Collective, the Borg - and a big-brother government to enforce it. Either individuals are primary, or they are to be subverted to the collective. Either we embrace liberty or we want government-enforced equality of outcome.

Mixing these pieces leads to a confused, muddled outcome. Which is what happens when someone builds something without plans or without knowing what he’s doing.

Now, since it’s a dichotomy…ONE of the parties should give voice to the 40 percent of voters who believe in the Founding Principles; and another 20 percent who don’t understand them or haven’t thought them through, but who like the results. The results of minimized government is prosperity and societal advancement - 1982 to 2005. A society of opportunity and choice.

One of the parties should represent these folks and work to persuade others - and it’s not gonna be the Clintons’ party.

Sure, Reagan was a Democrat. He was a liberal, too. He grew up; as did I; as did many others.


#28

Well, then, I expect you can provide an impressive list of accomplishments. I’ll wait.


#29

Ah, well, guess I can’t be called conservative any longer.


#30

Don’t worry. You’ll get used to it :wink:


#31

Waiting…


#32

I’ve known for quite a while that the sobriquet ‘conservative’ does not fit me as currently applied. shrug Language changes with time. “Classical liberal” would fit better, but that’s still not exact. Too many labels get thrown around anyway. I guess, by the modern definition, that I am a ‘right wing extremist’, in as much as I believe in radical ideas like “That government is best which governs least” and “…to protect these rights government were instituted among men”.

Here’s the deal: the American republic is dead. We have a government of men, not laws. That transformation was complete when James Comey agreed to become Hillary Clinton’s vassal. Welcome to the neo-feudality. Kneel before your masters.


#33

Are the Republican Elite really conservative?No. Ryan McCain, all bow to the progressive while nodding a general recognition to their constituents. They have not represented their constituents and generally ignore their districts until election. This whole conversation regarding who is conservative is silly, what is a “conservative” anyway?Someone here said the Republican Party is made up of a variety of beliefs, and this being true it no longer is a party but just a gathering. maybe this is why the democrats have been so successful in recent years. The Republicans no longer stand for anything. Yet they will stand together when their little corrupt empire is threatened.


#34

Conservatives are a faction within the Republican Party - for the most part. Of course many conservatives want nothing to do with the party; but to the effect that they have ANY influence on elections and policies, it’s through the GOP.

It’s silly to expect all Republicans to be conservative or honor them. It ignores the reality - that the Rockefeller-Ford-Bush wing is nearly a century old and has a large number of adherents. It would be grand if the Republican Party were conservative - but it is not. Let’s recognize it and start acting on that reality.

The best course at this point is to recognize that conservatives are a distinct faction - and ACT like it, ACT as a separate caucus. Educate voters to the extent that they can. Use their weight - to influence the RINO mercenaries who want to win and don’t care how.

And have the structure ready, to bolt the party if necessary. As it seems more-and-more likely to be.