Wow, you not only missed the barn door, you missed the barn.
Reagan created, as you said, a "coalition". But I remember time and time again when Reagan was criticized for NOT being a conservative. He was challenged for runaway spending, with unparalleled to that time deficits, though he called for a decrease in the rate of spending.
He brilliantly sold as much wheat to the Soviet Union, the "Evil Empire", as he could. And he was roundly damned for doing that--by people who didn't see that our wheat was draining the life out of their economy like a vampire.
Time and time again, he did things his way, and to heck with whatever liberals or conservatives wanted, and he was generally right. Tip O'Neil complemented him for overwhelming democrats by doing things on their agenda they never dreamed they could do.
So was Reagan a conservative? In balance, yes. But though he carried their flag, he led and they followed. He was not *their* conservative, *their* candidate. He transcended conservatism to make a great presidency.
And that is my point. If you look at George W. Bush today, and you make a great checklist of what he has done, many items on that list are conservative. Many are liberal. And the vast majority go well beyond that level of philosophy.
Bush, like Reagan, is concerned with the USA, not just today, but years or decades in the future. From the lofty perch of the office of the president, they are less concerned with the petty squabbles of people today, then they are of grand designs, carefully constructed to benefit our nation long after they have gone.
And *that* is the candidate conservatives want.
Well and truly stated. Now, what Pubby prospective candidate fits that fold?
revisionist--is that how it's spelled?--or does it start with a "P?"
That's what we loved about him. We believed he was at least TRYING to be a conservative!!! Some of these RINO's are just sickening from the git-go!!!
Where have we heard this about going "beyond that level of philosophy" before? A cookie for the winner.
Really.
Unlike your post at #76, your post at #185 isn't a total crock of $hit. But it comes close. Your original post basically denounced conservatism, and what it means to be a conservative. IOW, conservatism by itself is a loser, and has no real chance of winning elections. You seem to be saying that for conservatism to be a success, it must be tempered with more moderate, more centrist and even with some liberal policies. Have I got that right?
In #185, you seem to be giving Reagan credit for his "so-called" conservatism, while at the same time calling some of what Reagan accomplished in the 1980`s, as being akin to the liberal Democrat agenda. I disgaree andcall that pure nonsense. I think your remarks miss the barn door, the barn and the whole farm, for that matter.
I'm still convinced that the old coalition Reagan build in the late 1970`s, can be a force in American politics once again. I'm confident that social and fiscal conservatives can work together towards common goals. The major objective is to see the conservative agenda advanced through the Republican Party apparatus. And I still think Reagan's way, was the best way. Reagan wasn't perfect, but his policy agenda was right about 90% of the time. While Bush`s policy agenda is right about 50%-60% of the time. Hence my reasoning for wanting to see the GOP get back to its conservative roots as promoted by the Reagan agenda. Its time the GOP moved away from the Bush agenda of big government Republicanism we've witnessed over the last six years.
IMO, American conservatism goes hand in hand with what the Founding Fathers wrote down in the US Constitution, and I think those men had it right. I think Reagan had it right.