The likeminded Democrats who voted for Ronaldus Maximus agreed with HIM on most issues. When you suggest that they disagreed with "us", that begs the question of just who "us" might be. Since you typed that word "us," you apparently suggest that "paleowhatevers" are part of "us." They are not. They never were. They never will be. Although I became a conservative Republican as a teenager from a labor Democrat family because of a very misplaced regard for Barry M. Goldwater (who turned out to be an enthusiast for abortion and for legalization and tolerance of homosexual perversions and had been the husband of a first wife who spent thirty five years of her life as a Planned Barrenhood National Director, ending only with her death), I soon turned to Reagan and so did millions of those from Democrat backgrounds who fled the Demonrats when McGovern's reds took over or even earlier. Many of any us that includes me and others from such backgrounds differ very much from the "devil may care" social anarchists and peace creeps who think themselves paleo"conservative", a term unknown until about 1986 when the paleowhatevers finally figured out that they were NOT ready for prime time among adults and were NOT going to be credentialed under Ronaldus Maximus.
Nixon beat McGovern because Americans traditionally despise communists and peacecreeps. The Wallace voters were not available to McGoo because they particularly despised his elitist red supporters and the urban rioting of spoiled minority Mcgoo supporters and alternative lifestyle pervert supporters of McGoo and the contempt for returning veterans by McGoo's antiwar despicables and a wide variety of other antiAmerican antisocial cretins who were associated then with McGoo and more recently with paleoPaulie and the "paleos" as well. Nixon was the last gasp of spineless Ike's "Modern Republicanism" and he wasn't much like Ike was not much but, at least, he was no McGoo. Actually Ford was the last gasp but he was never elected outside of Grand Rapids.
Ike did run as the "cut and run" candidate in 1952, not that there was much of a choice since Adlai Stevenson was not exactly George Patton or Curt LeMay. Ike's wimpiness is one more reason why he was a poor excuse for a president, a poor excuse for a general and a poor excuse for a Republican. He opposed Joe McCarthy, defended Marshall, was eswentially a New Deal Demonrat by persuasion and, if you make pretenses of "paleoconservatism," you ought to be a bit bashful about praising Ike. Organized cheapskatism and other obsessive forms of materialism do not equate to conservatism. One of the few legitimate functions of government is national defense (warmaking as necessary and desirable). Military budgets are necessary. Conservatives (the actual kind) are more skeptical and should be as to welfare state spending and the expansion thereof.
Somehow I don't see paleoPaulie and the limp-wristed Kunbaya set threatening nukes credibly to end the Islamofascist use of terror. Why would anyone have thought Ike trustworthy to do so? He just wanted Kumbaya and whatnot with the Russkis during and after WWII and as president. He telegraphed Tito that we did not favor the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 and Andropov soon arrived as soviet "ambassador" to personally execute the leaders of the revolution. Peace! Peace! Peace! West Point was wasted on Ike. The story of the second half of the 20th Century in the GOP is the absolute rejection of Kumbaya and the assertion of manhood in foreign policy. Not yet perfect but ever more so.
Ronaldus Maximus finished the soviets and finished the job that Ike refused to begin.
If Ike was a decent president, it must have been as president of Columbia when Truman begged him to run as a Democrat for POTUS. It certainly wasn't as POTUS. It is understandable that JFK campaigned on the missile gap since Ike was untrustworthy in foreign and military policy. It was after JFK that the elitists in his party turned red.
If you close or starve the two nuclear sub makers (New London and Norfolk) to satisfy the beady-eyed Main Street bank poobahs of the limited imagination, green-eye shade, sleeve garter and counting house variety that you are refusing what you imagine to be waste in military spending, you send about 60,000 very skilled workers who make the best boomers and attack subs into unemploment and then to be dispersed in the economy as a whole. Then WHEN (not if) you need a new generation of subs both as nuke platforms and as enemy navy killers, they aren't coming back to the sub plants and you cannot just advertise for new help to replace all of them, especially after a several year hiatus. Likewise, helicopters, tanks and a LOT of other hardware.
Ike gets credit from me for the Interstate (National Defense) Highway System only.
We are a great nation and we ought to act like one.
I take it that the return of Democrat control of House and Senate in 1948 signaled a desire for socialism here if that's what Winston Chu5chill's defeat in England meant???
Any comparison of the paleocoward of Galveston with Ronaldus Maximus flies in the face of history. Paul has zero, zip, nada in credibility as a military leader. Reagan finished the USSR. It is the poloplaying elitist set who just wonder WHY we have to son Rutherford's homosexual compulsions and daughter Muffie's need for that fourth abortion and wonder WHY we would want Chatsworth to take up a rifle and fight for his country when he prefers tiddlywinks at the club.
PaleoPaulie is an antiAmerican, antiwar, social anarchist and therefore a despicable twerp. He is no Reagan. I was a state chairman for Reagan's challenge to feckless Ford. I cannot really say that Reagan was a friend of mine but I certainly did everything I could for him and would do it again. That's why I will do everything I can AGAINST paleoPaulie. If you won't recognize the ideological gulf that separates Ronaldus Maximus from paleoPaulie, I do.
Also, the soviets enthusiastically greeted Ike's discovery of a "military-industrial complex" and his perverted resistance to national defense. Wonder why?
BTW, it IS the GOP base that will crush the paleosurrenderman in just a few weeks. Tick, tick, tick....
#851 and 855
Just WOW!
And most of those Democrats who voted for Reagan remained Democrats, so they couldn't have agreed with most of what the GOP stood for.
What the Reagan vote and the 1994 vote showed was a rejection of the elites and a desire of Americans to regain control of the nation.
So, both elections were populist in nature as is the 'Paleo' movement to return the nation to its Constitutional roots.
Nixon beat McGovern because Americans traditionally despise communists and peacecreeps. The Wallace voters were not available to McGoo because they particularly despised his elitist red supporters and the urban rioting of spoiled minority Mcgoo supporters and alternative lifestyle pervert supporters of McGoo and the contempt for returning veterans by McGoo's antiwar despicables and a wide variety of other antiAmerican antisocial cretins who were associated then with McGoo and more recently with paleoPaulie and the "paleos" as well. Nixon was the last gasp of spineless Ike's "Modern Republicanism" and he wasn't much like Ike was not much but, at least, he was no McGoo. Actually Ford was the last gasp but he was never elected outside of Grand Rapids.
So?
Americans wanted to end the Vietnam war which the elites refused to win.
Nixon kept us in it 4 years longer then necessarily, when we could have gotten out with the same terms 4 years earlier.
All Nixon was worried about was his own ego and he got alot of good men killed for nothing.
Ike did run as the "cut and run" candidate in 1952, not that there was much of a choice since Adlai Stevenson was not exactly George Patton or Curt LeMay. Ike's wimpiness is one more reason why he was a poor excuse for a president, a poor excuse for a general and a poor excuse for a Republican. He opposed Joe McCarthy, defended Marshall, was eswentially a New Deal Demonrat by persuasion and, if you make pretenses of "paleoconservatism," you ought to be a bit bashful about praising Ike. Organized cheapskatism and other obsessive forms of materialism do not equate to conservatism. One of the few legitimate functions of government is national defense (warmaking as necessary and desirable). Military budgets are necessary. Conservatives (the actual kind) are more skeptical and should be as to welfare state spending and the expansion thereof.
Gee, so ending a conflict now, is considered 'cutting and running'?
All Americans were doing in Korea were dying for nothing.
More were killed during the peace negoiations then before they started.
Another no win 'conflict' that had U.S. troops dying for UN goals and not allowed to win against the Communists.
Somehow I don't see paleoPaulie and the limp-wristed Kunbaya set threatening nukes credibly to end the Islamofascist use of terror. Why would anyone have thought Ike trustworthy to do so? He just wanted Kumbaya and whatnot with the Russkis during and after WWII and as president. He telegraphed Tito that we did not favor the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 and Andropov soon arrived as soviet "ambassador" to personally execute the leaders of the revolution. Peace! Peace! Peace! West Point was wasted on Ike. The story of the second half of the 20th Century in the GOP is the absolute rejection of Kumbaya and the assertion of manhood in foreign policy. Not yet perfect but ever more so.
Ike understood the limits of US power.
He didn't get us involved in no win conflicts.
Ronaldus Maximus finished the soviets and finished the job that Ike refused to begin.
Reagan failed in the mideast when those marines were killed and 'cut and ran' as fast as he and Baker could.
The Soviet Union collapsed because their economy finally fell under the weight of massive defense spending, just as ours will.
If Ike was a decent president, it must have been as president of Columbia when Truman begged him to run as a Democrat for POTUS. It certainly wasn't as POTUS. It is understandable that JFK campaigned on the missile gap since Ike was untrustworthy in foreign and military policy. It was after JFK that the elitists in his party turned red.
There was no 'missile gap' and Kennedy knew it.
The Democrats were always 'red', who are you kidding.
Read Ann Coulters book on 'None Dare Call It Treason' on the Democratic Party and their love affair with Communism.
If you close or starve the two nuclear sub makers (New London and Norfolk) to satisfy the beady-eyed Main Street bank poobahs of the limited imagination, green-eye shade, sleeve garter and counting house variety that you are refusing what you imagine to be waste in military spending, you send about 60,000 very skilled workers who make the best boomers and attack subs into unemploment and then to be dispersed in the economy as a whole. Then WHEN (not if) you need a new generation of subs both as nuke platforms and as enemy navy killers, they aren't coming back to the sub plants and you cannot just advertise for new help to replace all of them, especially after a several year hiatus. Likewise, helicopters, tanks and a LOT of other hardware.
I wasn't aware we were short of nuke subs!
How many do you think we need.
Ike gets credit from me for the Interstate (National Defense) Highway System only. We are a great nation and we ought to act like one.
Which means minding our own business and defending US interests, not that of the UN.
I take it that the return of Democrat control of House and Senate in 1948 signaled a desire for socialism here if that's what Winston Chu5chill's defeat in England meant???
No, because the House went back and forth until 1954.
The GOP was not standing for Conservatism, hence the Dewy campaign and the reelection of Truman.
Even Taft made constant compromises.
Any comparison of the paleocoward of Galveston with Ronaldus Maximus flies in the face of history. Paul has zero, zip, nada in credibility as a military leader. Reagan finished the USSR. It is the poloplaying elitist set who just wonder WHY we have to son Rutherford's homosexual compulsions and daughter Muffie's need for that fourth abortion and wonder WHY we would want Chatsworth to take up a rifle and fight for his country when he prefers tiddlywinks at the club.
I don't know if you think your writing style is witty but I find it goofy.
Reagan came to office advocating a strong national defense.
He built up the military and did pressure the Soviets, but he also botched the mid-east badly and got over 200 Marines killed for nothing.
PaleoPaulie is an antiAmerican, antiwar, social anarchist and therefore a despicable twerp. He is no Reagan. I was a state chairman for Reagan's challenge to feckless Ford. I cannot really say that Reagan was a friend of mine but I certainly did everything I could for him and would do it again. That's why I will do everything I can AGAINST paleoPaulie. If you won't recognize the ideological gulf that separates Ronaldus Maximus from paleoPaulie, I do.
Well, RR had not problem 'cutting and running' after over 200 Marines were blown up without even an attempt to wipe out those who did it.
Also, the soviets enthusiastically greeted Ike's discovery of a "military-industrial complex" and his perverted resistance to national defense. Wonder why?
Ike was correct about the 'military-industrial complex, that if not kept under control, it would destroy the US economy.
Our defenses were never in doubt under Ike.
BTW, it IS the GOP base that will crush the paleosurrenderman in just a few weeks. Tick, tick, tick....
And then the GOP base will support...?