+ 
- 
= 
The Republic base includes conservatives and fly over country. The Democratic base includes the radical left, Unions and inner city down trodden.
The Democratic base would, if given a chance, push us toward a Communist Totalitarian central government. The Republic base would, if given a chance, reduce the role of the federal government in domestic affairs. Neither party can long afford to appear in public as their most energetic base supporters would like them to appear. Both parties must keep the support of their base with somewhat symbolic gestures, designed to appeal to the base while not offending the great middle.
Part of Bush's skill is in making the largely symbolic gestures that will take away the issues that the other side could make hay with. These moves, such as signing an Education Bill without vouchers (as if any other sort of Bill had a chance in hell this year) or not denouncing Campaign Finance Reform or being soft on illegal immigrants, carry a risk -- of pissing off the base and not being so symbolic afterall. But they also carry an upside -- of weakening the radical left and establishing a Republican majority in the Senate, which would allow for a more conservative direction and in particular for some good Judges. If Bush wins the War on Terrorism and seats a few good Supreme Court judges over the next 7 years, then he's a success in my book.
There is your key. The fact is we need a more conservative government. How do you make it more conservative? The obvious answer is you make it less liberal. How do you make it less liberal? Vote out the Democrats. After you get the worst of the socialist lot of the Democrats replaced, then you can make it more conservative yet, by eliminating the worst of the lott of the Republicans. May sound dumb, but it's the only way. In other words, you're gonna have to make government a whole lot more Republican before you can make it conservative.
----------------------------------------
Because few Republicans have the capability to refute leftist arguments...
I disagree. I think he's right on the money. There isn't much left of the above statement today. I find it very depressing.
uh, if I remember history it began with opposition to slavery
+ - = Talk about throwing down the gauntlet. Are either of these goals realistic for the GOP in this day and time? I could roll with them but can anyone else?
Was Taft an isolationist? Depends on the definition of the word. Yes, he opposed American imperialism or expansionism. However, he also felt strongly that we should be part of an international order, favored the establishment of some sort of world court based on the rule of law, felt the problem with the League of Nations was that it did not have enough authority. He was in favor of tarriffs, but also opposed governmental intervention in trade (and yes, this was a contradictory stance). He felt that we should have unfettered trade as much as was possible without damaging our industries at home.
He was very much a constitutionalist, but at the same time he also felt that the federal government had a role in education; MAF, if you get around to it you could provide the quote by looking in the index for the page where Taft talks about the role of education.
What makes Taft such an intruiging persona to me is that both the Buchanan brigade and the Bushies both could look at their guy and say that he represents what Taft was about; he was the best of both factions wrapped up in one, but without any of the now-requisite charisma.
He is by far and away my favorite old-time politician, and his philosophy and teachings are misrepresented entirely too often, much in the same way that Barry Goldwater's are.
We could use some more Tafts and Goldwaters (before he got old and started losing his conservatism) these days. And if they were around, you know where they would be?
Front and center within the Republican party.