Replies

Even Reagan wasn't a 100% conservative either...

I agree. But no 100% anything, at least publicly, politician stands much of a chance being elected POTUS. Reagan enunciated conservative principles better than any president in my lifetime- and I watched Eisenhower's first inauguration on TV. This ability allowed RWR to gain the ear of a large portion of the American electorate who learned that they were more conservative than they ever dreamed.

The DIM's have it easy. By always appealing to the emotional themes of "peace" and promising "help" for the working person etc., the Rat's generally own the naive majority. The Pubs have to rely on a minority that understand the necessity of hard work and a strong, proactive national defense. Let's face it, the natural constituents of the two parties are not numerically equal. About 5 million more Dim's voted on Nov. 7th.

Although both parties have their purists, the Pub's stand to lose a greater percentage of their base when concessions are made as a result of political realities. Clinton signed the welfare reform legislation, and his base still loved him. Bush41 and 43 , and I'm not making light of this, failed to keep their bases intact by moving too close to the left on occasion.

Reagan, as brilliant as he was, had the luxury of following a failed president into office. Bush, however, was elected in 2000 by the skin of his teeth. He never has had any cushion. Only the imbecile Kerry and a war that had not yet become too unpopular gave Bush43 a second win.

Sadly,the intense pain that only a Dim POTUS can deliver to the various conservative and moderate factions needed to elect someone from the right will likely be required to put the Pub's back in power. I will be very pleased to be mistaken.