Posted on 05/26/2009 10:14:55 AM PDT by AJKauf
“Do you support his most recent trash talk tour, or do you favor Cheney’s stance?”
I absolutely do not support Cheney’s recent TV tour. His approval numbers are in the low 30s compared to Powell’s 64% and Obama’s 70% meaning people are turned off by him and therefore his message. From a purely political standpoint, he needs to get the hell off the stage before the 2010 election cycle begins or we take a major hit. This isn’t about like and dislike, this is about playing the game of politics. I don’t mind the message, I mind the messenger with the low political capital.
I very much endorse Powell and his more moderate view of Conservatism. I think taking foreign affairs a lot more serious with a lot more facts and research is a no brainer. I also think that he is right when it comes to reinstituting Wall Street regulations and taxation that was supported by Eisenhower, Nixon and GHW Bush. I am a fan of Reagan in the sense that he was a pragamatist and when push came to shove, he raised taxes 7 times, not because he wanted to, but because he was a pragmatist that gave in on small tax increases to win much larger battles. He was not a stubborn idealogue, he was a brilliant politician.
“I’m not buying for a minute that you are a Conservative, and I’m not convinced you’re even a Republican.”
This is precisely why Republican party ID numbers are currently at 21% nationally for Republicans...because of bullshit like this. In the view of you and those like you, I am either to tow the line on every damn Republican platform ideal or I am forced to get the F out. That is why we were thumped in 2006 and that is why we were smashed in 2008. If this kind of crap continues, we will get shallacked again in 2010. It is time to be pragmatic and choose our battles and be willing to bend on others.....JUST as Reagan did.
“Citation please”
It is pretty much common knowledge and the citations are too numerous to list. Either go here:
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/search.html
and type in Jefferson and education or do so at google. HIs writings, bills and just about any book written on Jefferson expand on this. His idea was that education was the only way to keep the US from becoming a permanent aristocracy. You cannot have an aristocracy without an ignorant populace.
Er, Jack, it ain't conservatism that Powell is espousing.
Like Powell, did you vote for Obama?
“In your opinion, is paying collectively to build and maintain the interstate highway system socialism?”
Uh, of course it is. Anytime you take from the many to provide a service for that same many, that is socialism.
“Er, Jack, it ain’t conservatism that Powell is espousing.”
Not by Dick Cheney’s or Sarah Palin’s standards, no it isn’t. But it is CERTAINLY conservatism by the standards of Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, Nelson Rockefeller, Richard Nixon, GHW Bush, David Brooks, Tom Ridge and many many MANY others. This bullshit of throwing out the moderates for the sake of purity is going to do nothing but shrink our party to nothing, with no power, no say, no ways to implement ideas and ideals, nothing, nada, permanent irrelevance.
It is important to remember that conservatism is not just what Rush Limbaugh says it is, conservatism has a history, a depth, a firm intellectual basis and political variance. People like Rush and Glenn Beck not only are unable to grasp this point, they don’t HAVE to. They don’t have to run for anything. Voters do have to pay attention to it and Republican politicians are mandated to pay attention to it because their ability to do anything depend on recognizing these realities.
Either we win over and keep the independents and moderate Republicans as Reagan did or we turn them over to the Democrats as is currently being done. If we continue to do the latter, we are phucked for the long haul.
Politics isn’t a game of writing a thesis and sticking to your ideals in a moment of battle death be damned. It is a game, there is maneuvering, there are smart and cunning compromises. Without these things, we get nothing but PURE socialism when dems run us through the wringer at the ballot box rather than a majority capitalism with specks of socialism if we hang on to the independents and moderates.
“So how would you, uh, have built the interstate sys., uh?
I’m sure that one with a deep intellect such as you must possess has an excellent answer that doesn’t require any tax payer funding.”
Huh? I wasn’t saying socialist methods are always evil, did you read the whole thread? I stated we have many things in the US that are run as socialist systems, such as highway funding and I am fine with that.
At least I think that is what you are getting at. Maybe I misread your question or you misinterpreted a previous post of mine?
Psssssssst! Nelson Rockefeller, David Brooks, Tom Ridge, et al aren't conservatives. Never claimed to be. They self-identify as moderates...or liberal Republicans.
I also note with interest that neither Ronald Reagan nor Barry Goldwater nor William F. Buckley failed to make your list.
Illuminating...
When the GOP adheres to conservative principles, it wins. When it adheres to "moderate" principles, whatever those might be, it loses.
The way to win over the independents is to promote conservative principles. Vastly more voters self-identify as conservatives (38%) than liberals (24%).
Regarding historical Republican primaries, in 1964 I would have voted for Nelson Rockefeller, in 1980 I would have voted for GHW Bush. I think that William Buckley, while an intellectual tour de force and uniquely loved by conservatives and liberals with his wit and jolly demeanor, was much too rigid in his personal and political beliefs. But he could be as he was a commentator and not a politician....that is a luxury.
I guess I am a moderate Republican then if that is the definition. But still a Republican nonetheless. Am I still allowed in the Republican party or should I go packing? That is the real question our party faces today. What do you think?
Did you, like Powell, publicly endorse and then vote for Obama? Surely, you agree that these are not the acts of a conservative. Or, for that matter, a Republican. One might even wonder whether they were the acts of a moderate.
If you did, you turned your back on the Republican Party -- as Powell did then, yes, I've no space in the tent for you.
Contrary to your experience, I voted Goldwater in '64 and Reagan in '80.
Personally, I have no animus against moderates, such as you describe yourself, and welcome your participation in the debate. But don't expect to convince me that turning our back on conservatism is the way to succeed -- except, perhaps, in certain narrowly defined circumstances (e.g., New England). I'll listen carefully and respond to potential winning strategies -- but not to proven losers (e.g., McCain).
By the same token, I'm not for running anybody out of the party -- unless they have acted as Gen. Powell and Sen. Specter have. The party is clearly better off without them.
She is incompetent. (This decision proves she doesn’t know the law.)
She has no idea what the role of Federal Judges are. (Her own words convict her.)
She is an ethnic racist. (Again, Her own words convict her.)
The GOP better go after her like a pirhhana.
“Personally, I have no animus against moderates, such as you describe yourself, and welcome your participation in the debate. But don’t expect to convince me that turning our back on conservatism is the way to succeed — except, perhaps, in certain narrowly defined circumstances (e.g., New England).”
I think that is as well as it can be put and is a winning strategy. Your pragmatic look at New England is refreshing. It is a fact that New England is liberal as it gets in this country and we face a choice there. Either we get liberal Republicans like Tom Ridge to run there and get 50% of conservatism out of his Senate seat, or we run a hard care conservative, lose the general to a Democrat and get 0% conservatism out of that Senate seat.
That is realistic and the only way forward in my opinion. For the rest of the country, midwest, south, some parts of the west, we run solid conservatives but we have to compromise where we have to. The hard part is being honest about the electoral make up of a region and deciding what we want to run in that area.
Someone needs to forward this info to Michael Steele.
Alright. We're in basic agreement.
A 50% conservative in those states is a step forward. But a 1% conservative (if that), like Powell, or a 20% conservative, like Specter, is self-defeating.
The first job of any political party is to win. And, whereas it might be true that conservative candidates will have difficulty winning in the Northeast, isn't it true that Reagan carried all but one state in the area in 1980 (exc. Rhode Island) and every one of them in 1984?
Congressional, Senate and Gubernatorial races are one thing. But it is absolutely essential that the party's presidential candidate and national standard-bearer be a solid conservative (are you listening John McCain?).
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.