Posted on 06/22/2011 4:27:15 PM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing
Ronald Reagan is the worst presidential candidate because he wants to bring more government into people's lives, Libertarian Party presidential candidate Ed Clark told a partisan local audience last night.
"Reagan wants to expand government's role in every phase of life. He supports a constitutional amendment banning abortions. This would interfere with the individuals right to make a choice," Clark told a crowd of more than 300 at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Clark also condemned Reagan's positions on equal rights for women and foreign policy, maintaining that government should be "out of our pocketbooks, out of our bedrooms and out of our lives." Clark contended that Reagan's support for military superiority over the Russians will put the country into an endless inflationary race and continue to expand government.
Carter
Clark briefly discussed President Carter, saying he finds it difficult to keep his language fit for mixed company when he speaks about Carter. "I think Jimmy Carter's three year record excludes him from further consideration in this campaign," Clark said to one of the crowd's several ovations.
Clark said Independent presidential candidate Rep. John B. Anderson (R-III.), although more articulate, more sincere, and more intellectually deft than Carter or Reagan, "is not an alternative. His message is that the current establishment is right--all we need is another man to run it. If you like the system, vote for Anderson."
The talking points used by the media.
The talking points used by the democrats.
The talking points used by the media.
The talking points used by the progressive establishment of the GOP.
And the talking points used by the media.
Levin talked about this last night. It's good to see a reminder of things really haven't changed as much as we all may think.
I hate to say it (flamesuit on), but some people treat Reagan like he was the second coming of liberty, he wasn’t. That having been said, he did more than any modern president to turn back government’s invasiveness into people’s lives. And in my opinion, was a good man, which is why I like him. I don’t expect a lot out of a President, but am realistic, he’s one man, not the entire government (although Obama is really trying to be both).
It took Carter to get Reagan, but I think after Obama, someone even better (than Reagan) may run/win, who really does bring the second coming of real liberty, the kind our Founding Fathers fought for. That would really be something.
Well, it sure as hell won’t be nutbar Ron Paul or any kooky libertarian.
I don’t think it will be anyone kooky, but whoever it is will be painted as such. Or a “Rightwing zealot.” That’s the two choices liberals label. “Crazy” and “Fanatic.”
Look what they’ve done to Palin, Glenn Beck, et. all.
(”Out of touch” is when too many people like the person to call them crazy or fanatic, then they have to pussy foot around their pejoratives.)
See the third paragraph of the posted article. Ed Clark is 1980 paleoPaulie. Ronaldus Maximus was 1980’s Robert Taft the Elder and then some. Short, sweet and simple.
Correctomundo!!!
Wesley and Ed make me wonder if the surname Clark may be a monument to bad handwriting as was Nome, Alaska. Methinks the correct surmane must be Cluck.
Ron Paul wasn’t supporting Ed Clark in 1980, Ron Paul was supporting Reagan in 1980.
Ron Paul is firmly in the tradition of Taft, not in the Neocon tradition of Trotsky and the Democrats.
You persist in your contrived fictions that Ron Paul and his curious and utterly eccentric anti-American views can be in any way compared to the magnificence that was Ronaldus Maximus or the very principled competence that was the post-Pearl Harbor Robert A. Taft, Sr.
You have no idea what a "Neocon" is/was. Some of the greatest leaders of the conservative movement were apparently Trotskyites in their misspent youth in the leftist hothouse that was City College of New York. Their glory was their ultimate ability and willingness to change their minds, reject all forms of Marxism, and become intellectual warriors for Western Civilization. Ronaldus Maximus was a bleeding heart liberal in his youth until tough guy actor John Garfield who had been severely beaten by communist thugs outside a SAG meeting (dying a few days later) for trying to announce his renunciation of communism and the communist party, called Reagan to his bedside and gave him warning of what the reds had in store for Reagan and how he had been used.
Don't take Reagan's name in vain when you are ignorant of his history. Neither Reagan nor Robert Taft the Elder deserve to be used as posthumous tools by the likes of paleoPaulie and the Paulistinians.
David Stockman (ex-SDSer turned GOP Congressman from Michigan) was supporting Reagan in 1980 and no one cares about that either and no one should care given Stockman's treason toward Reagan as his budget director.
The paleopipsqueak and his zombified sycophants are not fit to shine the shoes or empty the bedpans for Norman Podhoretz, Midge Decter, the late Irving Kristol, Gertrude Himmelfarb, Sidney Hook, Walt Rostow, Eugene Rostow, Robert Bork, etc. PaleoPaulie and the Paulistinians will never be accused of having an original thought much less a patriotic one in their pathetic lives.
Ron Paul: Trufer; buddy of Alex Jones and other conspiracy nuts; supported by David Duke and similar folks; 1988 Libertoonian POTUS candidate while Ronaldus Maximus was STILL in the White House. Whattaguy!!!
In Catholicism, we have a term for people who refuse to learn or acknowledge the obvious truth: Invincibly ignorant. Regrettably such people waste the time of people who do acknowledge objective truth. It is a fallen world.
Uh, oh. There I go again, using more than five short words.
Where were the conservatives in 1973, when socialist Michael Harrington called Pro-War Humphrey task force member and (ex?)Trotskyite a “neoconservative”.
Why didn’t they say “NO, this is NOT CONSERVATIVE. Get Out and Stay Out” Let your prowar, “tinker with socialism a bit”, keep fighting it out. Just because your buddies won’t keep giving you the wars you want, doesn’t mean your beliefs are in any way conservative. I know you’d like to infiltrate the Republican party with your version of liberalism which is currently unpopular in the Democrat party, but we don’t want you here.
“A Foreign Policy For Americans”
“If we are foolish in our use of our strength, we shall not survive” - Robert Taft “Mr. Republican”
http://mises.org/books/taft.pdf
I will take Taft over Trotsky any day.
Having to make more false accusations against true conservatives to try and prop up your little demigod? Give it a rest; you have no credibility.
... but we don’t want you here.
That's not your call. Do you need fresh reminders of Jim's remarks on Paul and his Paulbots?
I will take Taft over Trotsky any day.
You've run that one into the ground and still nobody thinks it clever.
And Paul is no Taft. Give that a rest, too. Nobody cares about Ron Paul. We have a Marxist in the White House to defeat.
Either get on board or go pester people in another forum.
Your abuse of that quote of Taft by presuming that he was a treasonweasel peace creep when the quote comes from his book which argues precisely the opposite of the cowardly give-a-sh*t flight from foreign policy of the Paulistinians and their looneytune leader is no surprise.
You are, of course, also engaging a false dichotomy that you must choose between Trotsky and Taft. No one argues for Trotsky and no one should. You and your ilk would have refused and largely did refuse (as to you, assuming you were old enough to support or refuse) to support the use of American forces against Ho Chi Minh who was far more practical and far more dangerous than Trotsky who was butchered as an exile in Mexico by a Stalinist agent. One of Stalin's more sensible efforts judged by its results.
In advancing the false dichotomy of Taft vs. Trotsky, you not only libel Taft but understandably avoid reality (a general Paulistinian trait). When, as you repeatedly remind us, the paleosurrenderman El Run Paulie was supporting Ronald Reagan in 1980, was Paulie supporting FDR??? Reagan had supported FDR just as the actual NYC elderly "neocons" had at least been alleged to have been Trotskyites in their very distant youth in the 1930s. Reagan changed his allegiances politically and so did the actual neocons.
I was born into a labor Democrat family which is now almost entirely Republican and is entirely conservative. If you think the conservative movement, much less the GOP, nowadays consists of thin-lipped money obsessives at counting houses in obscure Midwest towns, whining about how war and military cost a lot of money that ought to be in their stock dividends, you are an anachronism. This is not your great grandpa's despicably isolationist and morally irresponsible libertoonian party. Even your great grandpa would find paleoPaulie joining with Lavender Bawney Fwank to cosponsor federal drug legalization an astonisher. So would Robert A. Taft the Elder who, were he alive, would gladly spit on the Galveston treasonweasel.
Where were conservatives in 1973??? They were reading Human Events and National Review and acting (in my generation) through organizations such as Young Americans for Freedom, the Young Republican National Federation, the College Republicans, opposing McGovern and his foreign policy treasons in the 1972 election while holding our noses over having only Nixon to club McGovern into oblivion.
This conservative was state chairman of Young Americans for Freedom, Young Republicans, College Republicans and a state affiliate of the American Conservative Union (back when it was still conservative in the pre-David Keene days). This conservative also worked the New Hampshire primary for and with John Ashbrook in 1972 and served as a state chairman for Ronaldus Maximus when he challenged Feckless Ford in 1976. I also served as a volunteer lawyer for conservative groups ranging from arrested National Rifle Association members (all dismissed or acquitted) to what was called Operation Rescue (1100 arrestees and nearly all dismissed or acquitted). This is a partial resume.
Tinker with socialism a bit? When my home state enacted a state personal income tax on wages and salaries for the first time in 1971, I and the young people in the aforementioned organizations led a statewide revolt that forced the repeal of the tax several months before it was to go into effect and after the legislature had adjourned. Twenty years later (with no intervening state taxes on wages and salaries) such a tax was finally enacted and the gubernatorial perp was erased from public life. He had been a member of the spoiled trust fund brat wing of the state GOP, and incidentally, another peacecreep, pro-abort and advocate of perversion as a US Senator. We had taken his senate seat away and he came back to punish us with his tax on wages and salaries while relieving investment taxes and sales taxes for his rich buddies.
What have you DONE other than post inanities on the internet and persistently refuse to recognize reality while insulting people who have accomplished conservative agendas??? If you cannot or will not list what you have DONE, we will certainly be justified in concluding that you are nothing but a momma's basement keyboard cowboy who is all hat and no cattle.
There I go again, challenging your, ummm, intellect with more than five words, many with more than five letters! Lions and tigers and bears, oh my!
But the Paultard still won't get it.
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.