Posted on 02/11/2006 12:49:16 PM PST by Reagan Man
That is correct.
Thank you.
I do.
Well I'd start by defining it as someone who uses four exclamation points to defend a conservative policy ^^;
The Supreme Court was on the ballot in 2004 as part of GWB platform and I don't know anyone who was saying the Senate would not confirm a truly conservative judge. And no, I don't think someone who is pro-life, pro-traditional marriage and who works to decrease the size of government an extremist. I'm all three of those :)
It's almost never an issue of values, it's almost always an issue of degrees and rhetoric. You have to learn to calm yourself before you can seek practical solutions. I'll take a small win any day, every day. The hardliners want the 100% of their view in initiatives NOW and don't care if they lose the battle, the war, and the country.
He's a Bush.
You got what you nominated.
Great post.
Its a horrible Bush economy, but if it were a Clinton economy, then it would be a great economy. /sarcasm.
Reagan didn't support open borders. Reagan said: "A nation without borders is not a nation." Reagan did sign into law the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. It specified prosecution and punishment for employers who hired illegals. If that law was enforced, the IRCA of 1986 would have turned out to be what it was meant to be, a one time amnesty deal. Instead, the Feds lack of enforcement led to a ongoing series of liberal immigration policies under Bush41, Clinton and Bush43, that has led to the 10-15 million illegals we have living in the US today.
How shallow. Besides, that wasn't in defense of a conservative policy. It was the end of a statement about a historical fact.
If you didn't hear anyone talk about who the Senate would and would not confirm then you simply were not following the story.
You are foolishly putting weight behind empty labels without providing any clear definitions of those labels. Hardliners. Extremists. Etc. You have not made a point because you have not defined anything. All you have done is make a statement against exclamation points. I hardly think that is a solid conservative value or even remotely persuasive rhetoric. You're nothing but a name caller. Is that something you define as calm and practical?
"Spending is secondary to the WOT."
Spending until they were broke is what Reagan got the late Russia USSR to do.
I'm missing the connection or your meaning or both.
There is no USSR to bid into insolvency. Al Queda doesn't care. Radical/fundamentalist Muslims don't care. Some say even Iran doesn't care (they think Iran yearns for the good old glory days of whipping children into Saddam's mine fields).
The tone by the administration is fine. In an election year you don't want to be the heartless party. It's the idea of compassionate conservatism that solidified our control in 2004. The silly argument is that a tiny amount of money given to Africa proves we're misgoverning as a whole, even though it may be an example of one mismanagement. And the reason they are cutting now is that an economic disaster is looming and there is a cry for a solution.
Yes, we all want to see DEEP cuts government. Realistically, though, we cannot cut government to the bone in a single year and an election year in particular. Lobby your congressman to get the best cuts we can year over year instead of complaining that the government doesn't run on a 2 dollar bill.
also, 9/11 didnt happen while reagan was in office. the fact that the borders are open for this long after that fateful day is dangerous.
i would guarantee that RWR would support closing the borders if he were alive and coherent.
Disagree strongly. Reagan would still get 65 percent. He was more conservative than the public, but he brought them along by the strength of his arguments and his convictions. When he was proved right, as with the economy and the Cold War, the public was ready for an era of conservative government. Bush I squandered that by playing nice with the dems. He still would have beat Clinton but for Perot, so it's not like the public abandoned conservatism. Two years later, the Congress changed hands for good.
8 years of Clinton hurt us deeply, by extending the Dem control of the judiciary, and allowing the degradation of the culture to become the norm. People are more PC now than in 1993, by a long shot. But it is false to say a good, strong conservative in the mold of Reagan would be unable to be elected or to lead the nation towards real conservatism.
I was wondering when Sinky would chime in.
You're getting quite heated again Ghost. However, you may be right in the sense that labels do not mean the same thing to all people. The only distinction I mean to draw is one of pragmatism vs. idealism. I want the most conservative result that has a good chance of suceeding and increasing the success of the party. Some people want the most conservative result, period, regardless of success or repercussions.
I think the emphasis should be on the word far in my statement. I do think, if we win in 2006, that a more conservative president than Bush is on the horizon. The most important thing is polish and charisma. A person with a vision that can bring the country together.
Thats so true. I think people from the "far right" are living in a land of illusion. IN 2000 Gore got more votes than Bush and we barely won the Electoral college. Kerry, a huge liberal, also got what 48 49 percent of the vote. I am not saying Conservatives violate their principles but Govt runs also on compromise. That is not a dirty word. We almost have the Supreme Court in our grasp. BUt do not be fooled we are just basically reappointing conservatives. We are one HEart attack away on the Court from Conservatives being in dire straits and maybe having the Court have a Liberal majority for years to come if we dont retain the White House. It is essential that we ttake the White House 4 years from now and hopefully if that happens encourage Scalia to maybe resign so we can replace him at the least and hopefully replace Stevens
As to the HOuse. Folks this a 15 seat majority. We do not want John Conyers head of the JUdicary committee. Its like on the immigration issue. How come when listen to Dem Gov Richardson who wants to secure our borders it seems reasonable. I listen to the far right and their rehtoric on the issue and I start recoiling. Why is that? Esp since I agree with then on about 80% of what they say. If I am recoiling then you can bet the vast middle will. Baby steps is needed. That doesnt mean no bold conservative iniatives. But whats developing iis a conservative purity test that will defeat us and snatch defeat out of the jawas of victory. The purple areas do rule. Minnesota, Wisconsin etc are starting to trend for us lets not quit looking long term.
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.