Number one........you went on and on and on about a book you were writing about how magnificent Reagan was and how awful Bush was. I can find the posts if you need the proof.
Secondly, I said absolutely nothing bad about Reagan. It is a common characteristic of Bush bashers to look at Reagan through rose colored glasses and ignore his failings, and to ignore Bush's accomplishments and ignore his successes. Paul did that BIG time.
Both Reagan and Bush are/were amazing, strong, solid leaders.......both should be admired by any real conservative. Neither is/was perfect. Neither should be demonized by conservatives, as Bush is every day on this forum.
I don't need to defend my conservative credentials to someone like Paul. They stand for themselves, and my history is long and solid as a conservative.
I am not even close to being a 'moderate,' and the proof of that is that the thread on which I first had the misfortune of running into the braggart, Paul Ross, was on a thread about abortion. There is no area of the political realm in which I can be called a 'moderate.'
So, Paul.......cut it out. But if you insist on lying about me, please have the courtesy to ping me, as per FR rules.
You asked not to be pinged. So you lied again I guess.
...........but I have to correct some lies you told.
False. I need to corrrect your lies.
(1) I made a simple comparison on defense and budgetary and philosophical issues. Deal with it. Find what ever you want. You couldn't deny a single thing. I made a joke about a book on the 'triangulation' thing, and it was you who 'went on and on' about the prospect.
(2) Yes, you did rag on Reagan. How 'even-handed' of you. And then right in this thread here you smeared him indirectly by accusing his defenders of myopia... Or still worse...of deifying Ronald Reagan. He humbly served God, and did not want nor need such. Although his service clearly warrants our undying gratitude. Apparently it has already died in you. Shee! 8th graders have such short memories.
(3)Regarding your repeated phoney evenhandedness here...you neglect the contradictions in that the current administration is embarked on tearing down the still-vital strategic deterrent legacy that the Reagan administration left...and this is done while China, Iran, North Korea et al rattle nuclear sabers...
More consternation is the fact that W is doing all this without the rationale of having to deal with Rats... While he is simultaneously ballooning the domestic spending beyond all reason...signing unconstitutional "good bills". And that is with a Republican Congress that didn't pressure him to be liberal.
Reagan never did any of that. So stick YOUR rose colored glasses where the sun doesn't shine. And get back on your meds.
(3) Your conservative credentials don't bear close scrutiny based on your color-blindness.
As for you not being moderate, you wore the shoe when you waded into this very thread and started the name-calling etc. in reaction to an observation about the ugly self-righteous nature of the moderates suddenly coming out!
Virtually no conservative pundit today is seriously calling W anything other than moderate. Not conservative.
Plus if we went through a list of issues, (I'll save you the trouble of digging back): I have a strange feeling you would line up 100% behind the more radical positions of W. Guest Worker-cum-Amnesty. No Border Fence. The Don't Ask Don't Tell policy. $15 Billion to Africa. The billions and billions squandered on the DOE and No Child Left Behind. Reagan tried to kill the DOE. Leaving Intact the NEA IRS status despite a slam-dunk legal case of their violatory politicking. Domestic spending run amok. How about the bribing off of Congress with the $48 billion of earmarks. All for an other unconstitutional trade agreement which perpetuates loss of U.S. industry, independence, and sovereignty. And let's not talk about the pell-mell destruction of the core of the U.S. strategic deterrent which even Xlinton didn't dare touch. And spending $16 billion annual at the Dept. of Energy to dismantle it. Underfunding the National Guard. Not growing the regular military instead to undo the worst of the Xlinton cuts. Failing to enforce IP at the WTO. Failing to enforce against China what few 'level playing field' trade rules there are, such as currency manipulation, etc. Leaning hard in support of CNOOC to buy up UNOCAL, as flagged by numerous politicos. No concern whatsoever about the trade deficit despite the clear hazard to the U.S. dollar and U.S. savings. Classifying Able Danger. Protecting and rehabilitating the Xlintons from their CRIMES. Many still ongoing. Sandy Hamburglar given a pass. Letting Harriet Meiers torpedoed the Solicitor General's case in the Michigan Affirmative Action case. And a number of others. Then nominating her for the S.Ct.
On the plus side, we do have Roberts and Alito. I am pleased with him for that. But as I mentioned before to you They are fine. And your condemnation of Reagan failed to reflect that he didn't, at the time, have a deep bench of conservative judges to select from...as Hugh Hewitt has often observed. The Federalist Society among others has made a big difference. But conservatives, being conservatives, we don't forget what went before.And Reagan lost the Bork nomination in part, and perhaps almost entirely, because Arlen Specter the Defector turned on the President and his nominee. This same Senator which the current White House went out of its way to interfere in State politics to save him from certain replacement by a solid conservative alternative. All on the bogus assertion of 'electability.' Reagan, we were always assured by the 'moderates' wasn't electable either.
This is the short list.
OWF, you expressly practice some queer form of "republican relativism" equating Reagan with Bush. That's your privilege and right. But it certainly appears to me that you are more akin to those Big Tenter Self-Righteous pontificators who attack conservatives as Xenophobes and bigots...or worse.