Posted on 09/26/2005 5:34:31 PM PDT by mwfsu84
One could argue that out of Perot, that gave us the Contract with America. So yes.
Get some rest . .
Designer is still trying to exert some small measure of influence at the local level. Having served on several local committees, trying to steer the platform toward some semblance of educated conservatism, I find that the state and national level is completely bought and paid for by the insiders. What chance do a few of us have at the local level when all the power brokers are against us?
Wrong, sir! There is no "pick" as you put it.
What meaningful choice are we making when we choose between Republican and Democrat when both parties appear to be selling us down the river?
The Party Formerly Known as Grand.
I think it would be best to vote Republican for President and, where we can do so, find alternatives at the congressional level that can win. Everyone wants to start at the top. The only way to make lasting change is to start at the bottom (local and state level). Build an organization and grow it. If this happens, the Republican Party will morph into a party of moderates that will have a reason to side with the rest of us (or they won't survive). Get involved at the local level. Bust the party machines chops. Go after seats of moderate Democrats and RINOs.
That would be throwing away your vote.
No, it's called voting. Throwing away your vote is not voting at all. Republicans better pick up on the fact that the conservative wing of the party is almost finished with them. So what if democrats get into control for a few terms if the long term effect is that we build a new party.
>>>>HR spending went up dramatically under Reagan.
As a percentage of the budget, HR spending went down under Reagan. I posted the facts. Obviously, the facts mean nothing to you. If you ignore the facts, you ignore the truth.
>>>>It was that Defense spending went up even faster under Reagan reducing the percenage spent on HR but the HR dollars doubled under REAGAN.
That was Reagan's plan. Shift the money from HR to Defense and it worked. What's the problem?
>>>>Your figures are like my former wifes'.
Come on CT. Comparing your ex-wife's budget with the budget of the US shows you're being intellectually dishonest and using cute cliches in bold type because you have no way out, is downright pathetic.
Reagan may have been clueless in 1976.
But he's in the top 5 presidents of all time. Ford is bottom fishing with Clinton
Sounds to me like you haven't actually tried to hold your electedc representatives accountable. Just try putting "pressure" on your congressman! And how will you do that? By whitholding your $25 donation? By threatening him with your non-vote? By asking him why he voted to decrease your freedom, increase your taxes, and give himself a raise? How, exactly have you tried to put "pressure" that is substantially more meaningful than say, several hundred thousand dollars in campaign donations coming from just one sector of our economy that is not you!
And if you really think elections go the way of the so-called "swing voters" boy, have I got news for you!
Ready? Here it is: Elections go the way the Power Brokers want them to go. You and I have not a snowball's chance compared to multinational corporations, major media conglomerates, career internationalists, and in some cases, even foreign nationals.
I'm a conservative and I'm not sick of them.
What I am sick of are the very small but hyperbolic "cut your nose off to spite your face conservatives", who I believe are hillary's and the democrats bestest friends.
We have similar problems in Colorado, and we got Democrat Senator Ken Salazar for our efforts.
Toomey would have been a better Senator, IMHO, but I understand incumbent power too.
I believe you are correct in PA, and it's what we have to do here in CO. Stop the carping and get to work in electing better candidates. Part of being such a "big tent" party is being able to bring our right and left together in winning elections. Our so-called moderate Republicans run scared in not wanting to offend anyone and the more conservative Republicans just move ahead and do their job. Our challenge is to get these moderate Republicans behind more conservative candidates to give voters a clear choice based on political philosophy and not personalities or choosing who would give them more.
And yet I can find nothing from the Framers stating that we should vote for someone based on their electability. Voting our consciences and that the candidate follows the Constitution is covered but voting for someone only if they can get elected? That's what has given us the two facet one party system we have now. No thanks
No offense, but if you can't see the difference between Bill Clinton and George Bush, you aren't paying attention. You may not believe Bush is doing enough, or you may believe he should do more, but if you think life would be the same had we a Gore or Kerry presidency, you are sadly mistaken. It is fantasy to think we can simply wave a wand and have everything change overnight, or even in a few years. I think you and I would agree our country need a major readjustment in direction. Where we vary is you want it now and I'm willing to move to the right over more time.
Carping about Bush solves nothing today. We have too much else to work on, such as another Supreme Court Justice, making permanent the tax rate reductions in congress, addressing the energy problems, getting help to the people in the hurricane affected states with tight oversight to stop anyone from abusing the situation.
We need to win the elections in 2006 and get more Republicans in congress. The most effective way to put pressure on Bush, or any president for that matter, is to have a more conservative congress. Clinton had to cave because of the Contract With America and future presidents will also follow the will of congress.
Say what? I posted the data from OMB.gov. I gave you the links to OMB.gov. What more do you want? I can't force you to go there and check out the figures. That is your responsibility. One more time. Entitlement spending under Reagan went down during his Presidency.
When Reagan took office social welfare & entitlement spending, aka. HUMAN RESOURCES, as a percentage of the US budget under Jimmah Carter was 53.4% of the budget. Over the next 8 years under Reagan, that spending was significantly reduced. In 1982= 52.1%, 1983=52.7%, 1984= 50.7%, 1985= 49.9%, 1986= 48.6%, 1987= 50.0%, 1988= 50.1%, 1989= 49.7%.
In addition, by the end of Bush41`s term of office HR spending went from 49.4% in 1990 to 58.7% in 1993. This was my original point. Spending went way up during Bush41`s tenure, as did income tax rates. When Clinton entered office the stage was set for a huge tax increase and that is exactly what happened. You have selective memory CT. You only remember what you want to remember.
>>>>Reagan did not cut a penny off of the Welfare state. He Doubled it... In case you don't remember it was Bill Clinton who Cut Welfare.. NOT Reagan. Reagan increased it
Reagan shifted HR dollars to Defense. I clearly showed you that as a percentage of the budget, social welfare & entitlement spending went down under Reagan. That's one of the big reasons liberals hate Reagan so much. They take cheap shots at him for reducing social welfare and entitlement spending whenever they can. Now you're doing it too. Pathetic. And Clinton wasn't responsible for reforming welfare. It was the GOP Congress who held his feet to the fire and on the third attempt, got him to sign-off on welfare reform.
>>>>Who should we believe Reagan or YOU???
Rhetorical bait and switch. Again. I posted the data from OMB.gov. I gave you the links to OMB.gov. What more do you want? I can't force you to go there and check out the figures. That is your responsibility. One more time. Entitlement spending under Reagan went down during his Presidency. Period. The facts in this case don't lie.
>>>>Reagan Man found graphs that use the LBJ system of showing reduced spending for social programs... Don't include social entitlement numbers in your graph.
You're using the standard liberal tactic. If you repeat a lie often enough, people will think you're telling the truth. The graphs I posted came from CATO. A libertarian think tank who preaches fiscal conservatism.
>>>>By the way Reagan like Bush43 increased Medicare benefits.
With the perscription drug program, Bush43 created the largest federal increase in spending since Medicare itself was created. Reagan never did anything like that. NEVER!
Uh the Framer's built a winner take all system, and thus the two party electoral system, we have now.
They knew that you can't please all of the people all of the time.
Human nature and all that.
BTW, I don't blame President Reagan, I blame people, like you, who hide behind President Reagan's legacy to cause division amongst conservatives.
You all in the hillary/DNC basement should really get a new playbook.
Great line! LOL
I still think we need a third party.....
I agree, we do, but let it be a smart party.
Think about this. After our party is established (Party of Reagan?), we have the option of running candidates wherever we choose to, at our state and national conventions.
We elect a national presidential candidate, but reserve the option to not run against the incumbent or GOP presidential candidate, if we decide that he/she has not strayed from conservative principles. Target all senatorial and congressional RINOS who have taken away our agenda. AND THEY SURELY HAVE!
Once we are established, ALL candidates have to take us far more seriously than in the past. We now have the kind of POWER that can achieve actual results.
Like all of you, I don't want a Hillary over a Republican. This plan gives us so many options in so many areas that will allow us to affect the political scene, without harming true Republicans.
P.S. Geez, I'm really getting to like some of those young reps like Mike Pence!
She's on the 'right' but her style mimes Begala and Carville.
The "elite" as you call them, have always and ever "picked" the presidential candidates
My concept of 'elite' is the national committees and the million dollar donators along with the MSM.
Clinton. He may have won, but he didn't help the Dems any, in the long run.
Huh, 8 years in the WH, junior NY senator and possibly our next president. Wake up toots!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.