[Wallace T.]

The whole political game is fixed, and both parties represent little difference on the national level. No Republican since Warren Harding ever significantly decreased the burden of government on peoples’ lives. Even Reagan did not significantly shrink the size of the Federal leviathan, although in his defense, his desire to defeat international Communism required some compromises with the Democrats who controlled the House for both terms of his presidency. Unless the Republicans nominate someone who will make a difference, say like Ted Cruz, a GOP Presidential win in 2016 will only slow down, and not stop, the slide toward statism and socialism.

The precedent was set by Eisenhower, who decided not to pursue repeal of the Roosevelt and Truman social legislation. His vice president, Nixon, did likewise with respect to Johnson's Great Society legislation when it was his turn to be President. Ditto for the Bushes and even Reagan. There is no reason to believe that a Jeb Bush or a Ryan would be any different from their GOP predecessors should either one of them, or any other RINOs, defeat the Democrat nominee.

[Theodore R.]

You are so right. I thought I read that Dwight D. Eisenhower had never before voted Republican until 1952! Seems like he did not vote at all most of the preceding time

[swpa_mom]

If the political game is “fixed”, are you saying that Ted Cruz is the ONLY one not in on the fix? I admire the heck out of Ted Cruz and I think he would make a terrific president.

Are you going to help him raise the funds necessary to fend off the liberal media and big money elites on the left? What if Ted Cruz doesn’t run, will you claim to be yet another victim of the eeeeeeeeevil “GOPe”? (whatever that is)

Here on the premiere conservative website, the thought process among many frequent posters is to attack anyone who’s not.....their choice. “I’m not gonna vote for X if he/she is the nominee, not good enough!”

It’s so easy to be the victim, isn’t it? Obama has taught you well.

[ek_hornbeck]

he precedent was set by Eisenhower, who decided not to pursue repeal of the Roosevelt and Truman social legislation. His vice president, Nixon, did likewise with respect to Johnson's Great Society legislation when it was his turn to be President. Ditto for the Bushes and even Reagan. There is no reason to believe that a Jeb Bush or a Ryan would be any different from their GOP predecessors should either one of them, or any other RINOs, defeat the Democrat nominee.

Nixon went even further than that. Rather than just passively failing to oppose the creeping welfare state (as was the case with Eisenhower), he actually built upon LBJ's "Great Society" foundation and signed even more extensive programs into law. Much as Bush II did with many Clinton-era programs.