[BigSkyFreeper]

The latter never accepted Reagan, but he won anyway. It is not that different today. Same forces conflict today, just different names and ages.

Of course it's no different, but guys like Vigueri want to disavow themselves from the very people who elected Reagan to two terms. That to me sounds like he wants to disavow himself from Reagan's vision of America and become totally irrelevant.

If that's his vision of Conservatism, I want no part in it.

[8mmMauser]

Of course it's no different, but guys like Vigueri want to disavow themselves from the very people who elected Reagan to two terms. That to me sounds like he wants to disavow himself from Reagan's vision of America and become totally irrelevant.

If that's his vision of Conservatism, I want no part in it.

But Viguerie was around in Reagan's days, too, and to me he sounds pretty much the same. Reagan's vision for America may be redefined these days, but back then, it was what Americans wanted. I can find nothing conflicting with Reagan's vision in what Viguierie says now. If you can find something core and specific, I would be interested in knowing.

Your definition of "conservative" must differ from mine and from that of Ronald Reagan as far as that goes.

[EternalVigilance]

If that's his vision of Conservatism, I want no part in it.

Your interactions with me on FR have been such that I have to believe that you disavow much of what many of us consider to be "the vision for Conservatism."

For example, you and your crowd have made a bloodsport out of attacking Alan Keyes, one of the few consistent visionary proponents of constitutionalism in America these days.

So, it is very difficult for me to take you seriously when you talk about your "evangelism" for conservatism as you've described on this thread.