Good stuff from Claremont.
As for Reagan the compromiser, here is a good article:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0301.green.html
I like the last paragraph: “But, as Reagan himself liked to cite from John Adams, facts are stubborn things. And the fact is that Reagan, whether out of wisdom or because he was forced, made significant compromises with the left…An honest portrait of Reagan’s presidency would not diminish his memory, but enlarge it.”
Politician A: “I want 400 billion in new taxes!”
Politician B: “No new taxes!”
Politician A: “Okay, how about 200 billion and some defense contracts in your district?”
Politician B: “Works for me!!”
Its exactly this sort of compromising that has sold this country down the river.
Interesting that the very thing claimed to keep a functioning government, to avoid being ‘a political eunuch’, the ART OF THE DEAL, is what is actually destroying the country.
This system was designed to avoid the actions of extremists? I’d call our situation pretty extreme: A 400 billion dollar deficit, approaching TEN TRILLION in debt…yep, we’ve got a functioning government alright.
Jeeeeeeeezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz…
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
More on McCain versus the Talk Radio mandarins:
[i]What a kerfuffle! Half a dozen talk-radio hosts whose major talent is that, like hairdressers, they can talk all day long to one client after another as they snip, have decided that the presumptive Republican nominee does not hew sufficiently close to their gospel.
As anyone who has listened to them knows, the depth of their thought is truly Oprah-like. [/quote]
You made my point. Thanks!
Most of the millions of people who listen to Rush, Sean, and so forth are conservatives. The talk show guys represent the views of these people. These millions are despised by the Country Club set, that looks down on them. The Country Club Conservatives (CCC) aren’t really conservative at all — they are smooshers who are out to make a deal. They want a pseudo-conservative government that works for the CCC, with corporate welfare and fat gov’t contracts (Bush and Cheney are excellent examples).
You’ve chosen sides. At least now we’re clear on that.
Thanks, Thunder!
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Politician A: “I want 400 billion in new taxes!”
Politician B: “No new taxes!”
Politician A: “Okay, how about 200 billion and some defense contracts in your district?”
Politician B: “Works for me!!”
Its exactly this sort of compromising that has sold this country down the river.
Interesting that the very thing claimed to keep a functioning government, to avoid being ‘a political eunuch’, the ART OF THE DEAL, is what is actually destroying the country.
This system was designed to avoid the actions of extremists? I’d call our situation pretty extreme: A 400 billion dollar deficit, approaching TEN TRILLION in debt…yep, we’ve got a functioning government alright.
Jeeeeeeeezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz…[/quote]
And yet, this is the exact thing you claim Reagan didn’t do, but he did.
So, by your own definition, Reagan had a huge hand in destroying the country, since he clearly compromised and struck deals?
Notice how you tiptoe past your boneheaded comments on Reagan? Convenient, no?
So, is your sainted Reagan one of the “destroyers of the country”? He raised taxes, after all. By your own standard, Reagan is a “Country Club Republican” who destroyed the country (don’t forget the deficits under his administration). Can’t wait to hear your answer.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
You made my point. Thanks!
Most of the millions of people who listen to Rush, Sean, and so forth are conservatives. The talk show guys represent the views of these people. These millions are despised by the Country Club set, that looks down on them. The Country Club Conservatives (CCC) aren’t really conservative at all — they are smooshers who are out to make a deal. They want a pseudo-conservative government that works for the CCC, with corporate welfare and fat gov’t contracts (Bush and Cheney are excellent examples).
You’ve chosen sides. At least now we’re clear on that.
Thanks, Thunder![/quote]
Yes, I have chosen the side of Reagan.
He was a Country Club Republican, right? What, with all that “dealmaking”?
And enough with your latest conspiracy theory that “elite” conservatives “look down” on talk radio conservative listeners. Tell me, HH - is every phenomenon in life the function of a conspiracy of “them” against “us”?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Tell me, HH - is every phenomenon in life the function of a conspiracy of “them” against “us”?[/quote]
Basically, yes-
If you have not noticed you belong to a highly political species with brains that excel at cheating and detecting cheaters.
Your question is similar to asking fish if their life revolves around swimming.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
So, is your sainted Reagan one of the “destroyers of the country”? He raised taxes, after all. By your own standard, Reagan is a “Country Club Republican” who destroyed the country (don’t forget the deficits under his administration). Can’t wait to hear your answer.[/quote]
Despising Reagan so openly? The last Republican who actually had some principles and went to the mat for them?
What a good plan…
Ronald Reagan was not Caesar. No one man IS Caesar. Your complaints should be addressed to the Dem/Lib majorities he had to battle for 8 years. Sure, he lost some battles. Such a knowledgeable person of military history knows that you don’t win every battle.
You simply can’t admit that this system sucks and that hiring eternally more people who’re willing to make a deal is NOT the way our.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Despising Reagan so openly? The last Republican who actually had some principles and went to the mat for them?
What a good plan…[/quote]
Ridiculous, HH - and now you are flailing about like a coward.
It was you that said that any level of compromise made one a heretic to the “conservative cause” and you used Reagan as your threshold, saying “Reagan did NOT compromise!”
You got refuted outright, and now you want to change your horseshit story.
Reagan was the exact kind of politician I’m advocating - principled, but realistic.
You tried to use Reagan as your example - and you got exposed. Well, by your own definition of heresy, Reagan is a heretic. Oops.
And, if you paid any attention, this is exactly the argument we have been making - whoever goes into the Oval Office is going to have to battle with a Democratic majority to get anything done. What you just said about “Reagan not being Caesar” is practically word for word the defense I was raising for the recognizing the necessity of political compromise when you have the same number/are outnumbered by political opponents.
Amazing! Now, you are trying to protect the stupid comments you made about Reagan by repeating back to me my arguments for the need for compromise and pragmatism when you don’t have the political numbers to run the table - and you have now completely changed your argument from just three posts ago. You have actually refuted your own argument. Well done.
Then, you said “Reagan never compromises and stands up to liberals!!”. Now, you are saying “Reagan had to compromise because no man in Caesar and he was faced with liberal majorities in Congress!!”
Well, which is it? You’ve got your leg caught in a bear trap.
You’ve spoken out of two uninformed mouths on “Reagan” and “compromise”…is there a third I should be aware of?
Of course, that has never been my argument - but nothing changes overnight, and change for the better is going to have to be after much persuasion and work. There is no momentum for a “tear down the federal government”, so someone has to start to build that momentum. It won’t be by being a tin-headed faux-revolutionary - it will be by making good, common-sense arguments to get back to what worked. Make the case, convince people.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Despising Reagan so openly? The last Republican who actually had some principles and went to the mat for them?
What a good plan…
Ridiculous, HH - and now you are flailing about like a coward.
It was you that said that any level of compromise made one a heretic to the “conservative cause” and you used Reagan as your threshold, saying “Reagan did NOT compromise!”
You got refuted outright, and now you want to change your horseshit story.
[/quote]
Where did I say that any level of compromise was heretical? You’re re-stating my arguments in your words, not mine.
Reagan never compromised on his principles. I don’t see a Kennedy-Reagan bill or a Feingold-Reagan bill (I know they were not colleagues in the Senate, but you SHOULD get my point). I never saw Reagan want to give constitutional rights to terrorists (McCain). I never saw Reagan advocate letting illegals swarm into the country (McCain). I never saw Reagan worry about terrorists and close their prison because mean old CIA guys were pouring water on their faces (McCain).
Reagan was not a Libertarian, that’s for sure. But his conservatism was a lot closer to that than a guy who cuts deals with this guy:
"Sen. Teddy Kennedy has demanded that the Bush administration waive attorney-client privilege and release internal memos John Roberts worked on while in the solicitor general’s office 15 years ago, all of which were supposed to be held in the deepest confidence. Apparently, Kennedy thinks public officials have no right to keep even their attorney-client communications secret.
This surprised me because the senator is such a strong advocate of the (nonexistent) “right to privacy.” And not just in the way most drunken, Spanish quiz-cheating, no-pants-wearing public reprobates generally cherish their own personal right to privacy. I mean privacy in the abstract.
If the Senate needs to know what Roberts thought about the law at age 26, then the Senate certainly needs to know what Kennedy thought about the law at age 36, when he drowned a girl and then spent the rest of the evening concocting an alibi instead of calling the police.
This isn’t a “rehash” of Chappaquiddick; it’s never been hashed. The Senate needs to know whether Kennedy was guilty of manslaughter. How else can the Senate be expected to carry out its constitutional duty to expel Kennedy unless Kennedy makes these key documents available?
We’ll pick them up in the same van we send to collect John Kerry’s military records and Bill Clinton’s medical records."
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46082
Birds of a feather…
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Despising Reagan so openly? The last Republican who actually had some principles and went to the mat for them?
What a good plan…
Ridiculous, HH - and now you are flailing about like a coward.
It was you that said that any level of compromise made one a heretic to the “conservative cause” and you used Reagan as your threshold, saying “Reagan did NOT compromise!”
You got refuted outright, and now you want to change your horseshit story.
Where did I say that any level of compromise was heretical? You’re re-stating my arguments in your words, not mine.
Reagan never compromised on his principles. I don’t see a Kennedy-Reagan bill or a Feingold-Reagan bill (I know they were not colleagues in the Senate, but you SHOULD get my point). I never saw Reagan want to give constitutional rights to terrorists (McCain). I never saw Reagan advocate letting illegals swarm into the country (McCain). I never saw Reagan worry about terrorists and close their prison because mean old CIA guys were pouring water on their faces (McCain).
Reagan was not a Libertarian, that’s for sure. But his conservatism was a lot closer to that than a guy who cuts deals with this guy:
"Sen. Teddy Kennedy has demanded that the Bush administration waive attorney-client privilege and release internal memos John Roberts worked on while in the solicitor general’s office 15 years ago, all of which were supposed to be held in the deepest confidence. Apparently, Kennedy thinks public officials have no right to keep even their attorney-client communications secret.
This surprised me because the senator is such a strong advocate of the (nonexistent) “right to privacy.” And not just in the way most drunken, Spanish quiz-cheating, no-pants-wearing public reprobates generally cherish their own personal right to privacy. I mean privacy in the abstract.
If the Senate needs to know what Roberts thought about the law at age 26, then the Senate certainly needs to know what Kennedy thought about the law at age 36, when he drowned a girl and then spent the rest of the evening concocting an alibi instead of calling the police.
This isn’t a “rehash” of Chappaquiddick; it’s never been hashed. The Senate needs to know whether Kennedy was guilty of manslaughter. How else can the Senate be expected to carry out its constitutional duty to expel Kennedy unless Kennedy makes these key documents available?
We’ll pick them up in the same van we send to collect John Kerry’s military records and Bill Clinton’s medical records."
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46082
Birds of a feather…[/quote]
Enough with this childishness. Not four posts ago, you said compromise was the hallmark of an untrue “Country Club Republican” and that Reagan “was NOT a compromiser”, demonstrating that he was a true conservative.
Then, you get shown that in fact Reagan did compromise as a matter of governance, and you then change your tune that sometimes compromise is necessary.
Now you are on to
(1) Reagan “never compromised”, even though we both know he did, but that his not compromising made him an exemplary conservative
(2) That you never suggested compromise made someone an untrue conservative, so apparently compromise is ok, even though true conservatives don’t compromise (a la your fictional Reagan)
Wow, there really was a third mouth on this issue.
So, is compromise ok when political necessities require it, or not? No one knows - you are sputtering schizophrenia on the matter.
You are positively bipolar on this topic. And you you are drifting off into irrelevance - we aren’t talking about Kennedy. We are talking about your unalloyed claims about how any kind of compromise makes one a “fake” conservative, and how you got hoisted by your own petard in all of your discombobulated arguments.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
…
Sean Hannity described your position very well today — the Country Club Conservative. Guys like you despise Reagan because he was NOT a compromiser. …
[/quote]
This is a load of shit. I like Reagan a lot but he compromised his principles just like every other politician ever.
[quote]Jason32 wrote:
Okay, so I guess everyone now votes for the guy who sucks less?[/quote]
Same as it ever was.
Are you a first time voter?
[quote]pat wrote:
Sloth wrote:
And yes, I agree with a major point raised raised in this video, McCain will have us involved in yet another war. Maybe even two.
So will the democrats. War may be a forgone conclusion. IT won’t take much to trigger another war. The ME is a powder keg and the fuse has been lit.[/quote]
I fear the democrats will pull back and make it worse. They will be forced to fight from a position of weakness.
[quote]pat wrote:
Jason32 wrote:
Okay, so I guess everyone now votes for the guy who sucks less?
We’ve been settling since 1988. [/quote]
I voted for Reagan in 1984 and it was settling for the guy who sucked less. He was far better than Mondale but Reagan was a phony politician just like the rest.
Politicians need to be measured with a different scale because they are all slimy.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
You are positively bipolar on this topic. And you you are drifting off into irrelevance - we aren’t talking about Kennedy. We are talking about your unalloyed claims about how any kind of compromise makes one a “fake” conservative, and how you got hoisted by your own petard in all of your discombobulated arguments.[/quote]
Not at all. Your candidate makes deals with guys like the above. He compromises his principles in order to cut a deal. Freedom of speech? McCain-Feingold. Let anyone who wants to roam the country while they ‘work toward citizenship’? McCain-Kennedy.
McCain buddies up with a man who should have gone to prison for manslaughter, leaving a woman to die while he stumbles off in a drunken stupor, all worried about the political impact of an extramarital affair.
I know, people with strong principles are hard for CCC to figure out. You see no difference between compromising on principles and compromising on a particular issue that DOESN’T compromise your principles.
My principles prevent me from even speaking to Ted Kennedy or Russ Feingold. IMO, anyone who works with them, as McCain does, has to compromise his principles to do so (or he had none to begin with). Therefore, while some some conservatives will hold their noses and vote for him, I think enough will stay home or vote Libertarian to give the victory to Hillary or Barack.
So, NO, he is not electable.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Let anyone who wants to roam the country while they ‘work toward citizenship’? McCain-Kennedy.[/quote]
You did read my post mentioning Reagan’s liberal immigration bill, right?
You did read my post mentioning that Reagan raised taxes, which is against every principle you think a dyed-in-the-wool conservative should hold dear and refuse to budge on?
So, in raising taxes and offering amnesty, did Reagan compromise or not compromise conservative “principles”? Do you have a direct answer, or just more weaseling out of the question?
I guess I’ll just have to be content being a “CCC” with CCC emeritus Ronald Wilson Reagan than take my marching orders from the magic talking box who blinds me to basic history.
Vote for whomever you want, but get some level of coherence to your arguments.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Let anyone who wants to roam the country while they ‘work toward citizenship’? McCain-Kennedy.
You did read my post mentioning Reagan’s liberal immigration bill, right?
I know, people with strong principles are hard for CCC to figure out. You see no difference between compromising on principles and compromising on a particular issue that DOESN’T compromise your principles.
You did read my post mentioning that Reagan raised taxes, which is against every principle you think a dyed-in-the-wool conservative should hold dear and refuse to budge on?
So, in raising taxes and offering amnesty, did Reagan compromise or not compromise conservative “principles”? Do you have a direct answer, or just more weaseling out of the question?
I guess I’ll just have to be content being a “CCC” with CCC emeritus Ronald Wilson Reagan than take my marching orders from the magic talking box who blinds me to basic history.
Vote for whomever you want, but get some level of coherence to your arguments.[/quote]
Your right, Thunder, it looks like he was evil as well — surrendering his principles, lying, cheating, making phony speeches while driving the debt even larger. Looks like he was even worse than Lincoln.
Since Ron Paul only gets around 5% of the vote, it looks like only that % of people are worth anything at all.
We’re going to get everything we deserve.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
…
Since Ron Paul only gets around 5% of the vote, it looks like only that % of people are worth anything at all.
We’re going to get everything we deserve.
[/quote]
You sound like a Nazi with this talk. I know you like to troll and it is occasionally amusing but I think you need to take a break.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
…
Since Ron Paul only gets around 5% of the vote, it looks like only that % of people are worth anything at all.
We’re going to get everything we deserve.
You sound like a Nazi with this talk. I know you like to troll and it is occasionally amusing but I think you need to take a break.[/quote]
Yeah, February always sucks for teachers. Probably sucks for everyone.
However, I do sincerely hope that we get just exactly what we deserve. That would be justice.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
…
Since Ron Paul only gets around 5% of the vote, it looks like only that % of people are worth anything at all.
We’re going to get everything we deserve.
You sound like a Nazi with this talk. I know you like to troll and it is occasionally amusing but I think you need to take a break.
Yeah, February always sucks for teachers. Probably sucks for everyone.
However, I do sincerely hope that we get just exactly what we deserve. That would be justice.
[/quote]
We deserve health and happiness.