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...?
BTW: Isolationism=Organized surrendermonkeyism and cowardice.
Globalism=League of Nations/United Nations multilateralism usually for the advancement of various evils including socialism and world-wide Kumbayaism and rejection of morality.
INTERVENTIONISM= Wage war where, when and as we (the US) pleases for US purposes whether the UN or other nations like it or not. It honors and recognizes traditional American exceptionalism and understands that we trust ourselves and very few who are not among us.
You praise the feckless wimp Eisenhower who was as much a multilateralist as our nation has ever tolerated in a POTUS much less in a general. His despicable kowtowing to the soviets as a general and as a POTUS was consistent with his (and your) nervous breakdown over the fact that the USA has an ongoing interest and need to be so very well-armed as to deter ALL opposition. You delude yourself into believing that Ike's campaign promise suggesting that he would end the Korean War was responsible for his election. Or that Nixon got elected in 1968 somehow as an antiwar candidate. Ask Abbie Hoffman or Jerry Rubin but since both are dead, ask Jane Fonda or ask McGovern or ask Ted the Swimmer. It is true that Nixon dirtied his skirts by engaging in endless and generally useless diployak with the soviet bosses and, even worse, with chairman Mao and Chou-En Lai (who at least agreed not to have a conniption over US interdiction of rail lines through China by which the soviets were arming Ho Chi Minh).
The simple principle is that when we choose to fight we are obligated to do whatever is necessary to win. Our presidents often fall short of that dedication to say nothing of the average Congressional quisling. Somalia and Lebanon are no more necessary to US interests than was Kosovo (another example of a POTUS Slick Willie on autosmooch as to Islamofascist patoot). We Americans drive automobiles. Oil is (until replaced technologically at reasonable cost) a vital interest of the US. Iraq has plenty of oil. If the locals in Iraq or Iran or Venezuela or Saudi Arabia or similar countries cannot get their act together and guarantee a flow of oil, we have to do what we have to do even if it costs a bit of money for the guys in the back room at the Hometown Bank on Main Street.
We can do a more efficient job. We can smash the Islamofascist enemies better than we have. There is absolutely no reason to believe that paleo-ostriches and neo-Neville Chamberlains will do anything whatsoever much less more effectively or more efficiently. They are addicted to coma as usual.
All paleowhatevers do is blubber incoherently, claim they would fight whatever war we are not presently fighting, oppose any war that we do fight, obsess about their taxes, and ignore the fact that we have lost fewer soldiers killed in this war of more than four and one half years' duration than there were people killed on our highways in any MONTH of the 1960s when we were used to domestic highway casualties of 50,000 per year or 12K+ per month.
Perhaps most hilariously of all, you want to describe the paleowhatevers as noble populists fighting the elitist regulars. James Baker is no paleo but he is no warrior. He is the very essence of elitist. So few people of any social description would be caught dead accepting the idjit paleodelusions that the paleowhatevers will have a hard time selling themselves as "populists." Interventionists = populists. Globaloneyists or INTERNATIONALISTS = Elitists. Paleowhatevers = a small slice of mental patients dedicated to national extinction through paleopeacecreepism and general inaction. The rest of the peacecreeps = frank leftists bright enough to have a clue as to the nature of their foreign policy and their hatred of the USA.
Reagan Democrats vote as they please without regard to party. When the GOP has the spine to nominate a nominee with manhood who will reject the elitism of the country club, the polo club, the yacht club, the board room, the obsessive materialism and who will fight our nation's enemies to their death whenever US interests are at stake and will thumb his nose at the UN. They think of the GOP as the party of their boss but will support it when it is aggressive in cracking down on crime, terror, babykilling and social perversions. When the GOP is despised by members of the general public, it is over economic issues and fiscal elitism. Under Slick Willie, the Demonrats wanted to get a piece of the "fiscal conservatives" while insisting that they were helping the poor.
American troops should NEVER be deployed under the UN commanders or as part of a UN force. The US should get out of the UN and kick it out of the US. (Even the Birchers are right twice a day).
Jefferson and Andrew Jackson were Democrats. I had not realized that they were reds as you claim in saying that the Democrats always were reds. I doubt that Ann Coulter believes that either. In fact, I warrant that the Democrats were the conservative party in American politics until FDR although there were many good Republicans as well.
If you don't like my writing style, you are not the first and won't be the last. Ask me if I care. I am not writing to curry favor with you. You write your way and I shall write my way. At least I don't shame myself by adopting paleowhateverism in whatever writing style.
Cutting and running (or fleeing in terror in the face of the enemy) are descriptions of "ending a conflict" without the unconditional surrender of our enemies.
You say that Nixon kept us in VietNam 4 years longer than necessary and he could have gotten the same "terms" (American surrender at the expense of our Vietnamese allies) when he first took office. Surrender is always reasonably easy compared to victory but victory was what is always necessary. Of course, you believe that there are "limits to American power." Logically, that would seem to be true but those "limits" are and were a LOT further from us than you imagine then and now. General Giap, in his memoirs, conceded that we had beaten him and the NVA by the time of the Tet Offensive but that the reds wondered in amazement at the gullible American public swallowing the propaganda of the leftist MSM. Ronaldus Maximus observed in 1968 that it would take six months and no more to not only defeat North Vietnam but to turn it into the world's largest parking lot with stripes. He also turned out to be an infinitely better president than the likes of Eisenhower or Nixon, much less Ford. It is regrettable but true (and necessary) that soldiers are killed in wars. Each is precious as is such sacrifice but surrender to the evil being fought is an ultimate evil and an absolute dishonor to each dead and wounded American soldier. Something that paleos and other peacecreeps never quite grasp.
We need and we shall have as many nuclear boomers and attack subs as we need or might ever employ in worst case scenarios. If Teheran misbehaves significantly, we might want to consider a practical demonstration of what one boomer could do to eliminate the problem of Islamofascism. If Saudi Arabia ever became a very severe problem, the names of Mecca and Medina come to mind.
"Minding our own business" is paleoweaselspeak for downsizing our nation, turning it into an amoral five and dime, ignoring the rise of our enemies while they fatten themselves on lesser prey until they can challenge us and rendering it unwilling to act when action is morally called for. Sean Penn, Nancy Facelift, Dingy Harry, Ted the Swimmer, UpChuck Hagel, Weepy Walter Jones and the paleopipsqueak are NOT conservatives. They advocate cowardice as national policy as did John Sherman Cooper, Charles Mathias, Pete McCloskey and a handful of other treasonous weasels in the GOP during the Vietnam War.
I got a bellyful of peacecreeps and other traitors during the Vietnam War and I am not about to make believe that today's paleopeacecreeps have anything to do with patriotism much less with conservatism when they seek (like paleoPaulie) to ally themselves with America's enemies in times of shooting war.