Again; two points that I will have to disagree with, Zeb:
ACCORDING TO TEA PARTY MEMBERS ON THIS VERY FORUM; supposedly the Tea Party was formed and became active prior to Obama coming into office. While I don’t see a lot of evidence of this, they state that they existed prior to Obama, and fought just as strongly against Bush (which is debatable); and will continue to fight for their beliefs after Obama.
(I personally fail to believe the latter also).
The “downfall” of the Tea Party will not be because of the “liberal” media…it will be themselves; especially if they begin to vote and act simply like a wing of the Republican Party.
In terms of Reagan…he certainly rode a wave of conservatism (especially Religious) in the 80’s…but I’m still trying to wrap my mind around what was actually “Conservative” about his Presidency and policies.
In terms of Reagan…he certainly rode a wave of conservatism (especially Religious) in the 80’s…but I’m still trying to wrap my mind around what was actually “Conservative” about his Presidency and policies.[/quote]
Reagan didn’t dominate because of religious conservatives - he attracted national security hawks (that were no longer welcome in the Democratic Party) and the entrepeneurial-minded voters that wanted some relief from the malaise of the Carter years.
Carter was seen as a foreign-policy weenie, was associated with stagflation and had a moribund personality - Reagan was seen as antidote for all three.
You don’t win a 49 state landslide in 1984 on a “wave of religious conservatism”. Twas a different wave for Reagan in 80 and 84.
In terms of Reagan…he certainly rode a wave of conservatism (especially Religious) in the 80’s…but I’m still trying to wrap my mind around what was actually “Conservative” about his Presidency and policies.[/quote]
Reagan didn’t dominate because of religious conservatives - he attracted national security hawks (that were no longer welcome in the Democratic Party) and the entrepeneurial-minded voters that wanted some relief from the malaise of the Carter years.
Carter was seen as a foreign-policy weenie, was associated with stagflation and had a moribund personality - Reagan was seen as antidote for all three.
You don’t win a 49 state landslide in 1984 on a “wave of religious conservatism”. Twas a different wave for Reagan in 80 and 84.[/quote]
Well said TB.
Mufasa, you are wondering what was so conservative about Ronald Reagan? Really?
Lowered income tax rates to their lowest point in modern history, and also simplified the tax code. He also Reduced capital gains tax as well.
Reduced government regulation.
Built the military to the point of breaking the Soviet Union. Yes this is conservative, but not libertarian.
At least tried to cut entire federal agencies. He was met with resistance because, unlike Obama, the house and senate were not of his party.
By his conservative economic policies he was able to create over 20 million jobs, in the private sector (Did you read that Obama lovers? It was in the PRIVATE SECTOR! People actually making products, or creating a service to sell to others)
He proved it was the right thing to do allowing people to actually keep more of the money that they earned, instead of handing it over to a government, that only knows how to squander it.
Ronald Reagan was truly a conservative in the mold of a Barry Goldwater (whom he worked for in 1964). I wish we had him back right now, God knows we could use a guy like that instead of the total disaster that was elected in 08.
On a separate issue:
“They” can say what they like about the Tea Party. The Tea Party would not be in existence today if we had not had an Obama Presidency. The Tea Party movement will never be large enough to elect anyone of significance. What it will do however is to keep certain people out of office. Do your homework on 3rd party candidates and movements, they are traditionally spoilers. My hope, as I’ve said, is that they pull the republican party back to the right where they belong. When the republicans chose McCain as their candidate I not only new that we were going to lose the election, but that the republicans had lost their way as well. Tghe best the Tea Party can do is make the republican party better-The worst they can do is become a spoiler and end up electing liberal democrats. Think about it.
And you are wrong regarding the mainstream liberal media. They can kill a candidate (Palin, Qyale etc.), or a cause anytime that they like. Never underestimate the power of the media my friend they elected Obama when they could have pointed out his many, many inconsistencies from his church of 20 years to his medical and college records, etc. They could have also pointed out his lack of executive experience, or any experience for that matter, as he ran for President a mere two years after being elected Senator. We are currently reaping a media driven Presidency- How do you like it? Does it feel really good? The media did it in conjunction with a self-destructive republican party.
I hope for much better from the republicans in 2012, I know better than to have that same hope for the media in 2012, or ever.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Let’s see, one group of people (the democrats) are for taking the money of people who have actually earned it and spending it to pay for everyones health care. And the other group of people (the republicans) try in full force to stop this, that’s a very big difference in parties. [/quote]
LOL. Nice. Meanwhile, the Earned Income Tax Credit was expanded under Gingrich. As in, the Republican congress expanded a federal program to take money from the rich and give it to the poor.
There is only idealogical opposition to Robin Hood in the Republican Party when it is politically expedient.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Where you at, John S.? Surely you have something to say in defense of Mr. Paul and his newsletters?[/quote]
What news letters are you talking about, and why do you continue to talk about Ron Paul? I have read many writings of Ron Paul you will have to be more specific.
If you are talking about his ghost writer, just continue to search the internet and find out the whole story.
Tho I do enjoy watching neo-cons pull the same race baiting stratagy out of their ass just like the democrats. Yep you are clearly showing just how the same you and the democrats really are. Maybe one day the republican party will wake up and throw the neo-cons out, until then I think I will just stick with the strategy of electing democrats and blowing up the bond bubble, and as a side bonus I will get to watch you neo-cons bitch and offer no alternatives, talk about cutting spending yet never talk about what you will cut.
This is the “Double-Speak” that drives me crazy, Zeb.
Reagan could have had a more “conservative” agenda if not for an obstructive Congress…then you list all of these Legislative accomplishments and increases in Military spending…that this SAME Congress had nothing to do with???
I actually liked Reagan…but my feeling as I look back is that he was more a case of being in the proverbial “right place at the right time”…and wonder what he would have or could have done if faced with the same circumstances as our current President. (and don’t try to give a “pat” reply…its a rhetorical question that no one can truly answer).
I do agree with you that the Tea Party can “pull the GOP back toward the right”…but if they, by their actions, appear to be no more than a wing of the Republican Party; then they lose their credibility.
In terms of “No Obama/No Tea Party”…you would have to argue that with those on this very Forum whom have argued that they existed before, and will exist after, Obama. (Which many of us doubt).
And lastly…don’t be fooled…ALL media has become “biased”…including the “Murdock Money Machine”, FOX.
What news letters are you talking about, and why do you continue to talk about Ron Paul? I have read many writings of Ron Paul you will have to be more specific.
If you are talking about his ghost writer, just continue to search the internet and find out the whole story.
Tho I do enjoy watching neo-cons pull the same race baiting stratagy out of their ass just like the democrats. Yep you are clearly showing just how the same you and the democrats really are. Maybe one day the republican party will wake up and throw the neo-cons out, until then I think I will just stick with the strategy of electing democrats and blowing up the bond bubble, and as a side bonus I will get to watch you neo-cons bitch and offer no alternatives, talk about cutting spending yet never talk about what you will cut.[/quote]
Translation: I don’t have a good defense, so I will instead respond with “go research it yourself” and then change the subject to accuse Paul critics of “race baiting”.
And, as for “neo-cons”, I thought it was the dread “Christian Conservatives” that you were whining about? I can’t keep up anymore.
I’m sure you’ve written some thoughts on the Forum somewhere…but what is your view of 1) Reagan (“right place/right time” is my view) and 2) the Tea Party?
There is only idealogical opposition to Robin Hood in the Republican Party when it is politically expedient.[/quote]
I don’t disagree with this, but because it happens doesn’t mean its cynicism (for either party).
Anti-Robin Hood types in the GOP coalition (pre-Tea Partiers?) had to be careful not to cause rupture in the party when they were in power - the stakes were too high to risk handing power over to the national Democrats due to national security concerns.
So, they grumbled, but they grumbled to themselves and tried to keep the party together for a different priority.
You don’t try to “cleanse” the party when the party is in power when the stakes are too high to risk defeat. That, unfortunately, is the reality, and had the national Democrats not been co-opted by the urban-oriented left-wing of the party after Bush got elected, there would have been more opportunity for intraparty complaints (because disaffected GOPers mad at fiscal overreach could, in theory, vote for a Democrat).
But there wasn’t. And now, out of power, the voices wanting an opposition to Robin Hood politics and economics can be full-throated - they have nothing to lose.
I’m sure you’ve written some thoughts on the Forum somewhere…but what is your view of 1) Reagan (“right place/right time” is my view) and 2) the Tea Party? [/quote]
Reagan, “right place, right time”: to a certain extent, yes, but I would add to that “right person”. Reagan is very similar to FDR - not anyone could have come into a situation ripe for approach and done what Reagan did. A certain personality and a certain vision was needed, and, maybe most importantly, a certain sense of purpose and history. Reagan wasn’t successful because of dumb luck - he was the antidote to what was ailing America and exactly what America was looking for.
Tea Party: full disclosure, I haven’t really studied up on the TP. That said, I like a lot of what they are about and I wholly believe the movement has been misrepresented. Best I can tell, the defining elements are (1) need for government reform (transparency, better process) and (2) bona fide fiscal conservatism. I am completely on-board with both of these and would vote for a national candidate who prioritized these.
But, the TP suffers from the crazies. At some point, the TP can’t be all things to all people and the TP must clearly define what it is not in addition to saying what it is. I recognize the “grassroots” aspect to it and the advantages of it, but it can’t remain that way forever. Every anti-government, fringe twit, regardless of stripe - formerly isolated and friendless - now thinks he has a “movement” to cling to. The TP must draw some lines. While the TP can’t control the occasional weirdo protestor (and shouldn’t be judge by him), if they don’t draw lines now, they won’t have the chance to draw them later.
Even Barry Goldwater’s conservative movement affirmatively decided to exorcise the John Birchers (with the help of William Buckley).
I want the TP to succeed, because they have an influence on both parties - but unless the TP gets serious about dealing with the fringe, they will sink into the abyss. Is the TP racist? Of course not, nor are any of their policy prescriptions even remotely attached to a racist or bigoted cause.
But the TP’s voice is too important for them not to clean house. Ironically, I don’t think the TPers get this - it is because their voice has become so important and so resonant that they have to get serious about cleaning house. It’s a good problem to have.
I like the FDR parallel (even though you DO know that there are many Conservatives who deem him the worst President… ever! I don’t.)
With that being said…I like what you said about “right place/right time”…BUT, those times require the right person.
Maybe Obama is the “wrong” person?..but I have extreme difficulty in seeing what a Conservative President and a GOP Congress would have, or could have, done, with an economy and financial system at or near collapse. Perhaps tackled the problem in much the same way…but left out such sweeping changes as Health Care?
Again…rhetorical questions that can never truly be answered.
I also agree that the Tea Party “voice” is one that needs to be heard…they are NOT a rascist organization…and they need to “draw the line clearly” with the fringe.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
This is the “Double-Speak” that drives me crazy, Zeb.
Reagan could have had a more “conservative” agenda if not for an obstructive Congress…then you list all of these Legislative accomplishments and increases in Military spending…that this SAME Congress had nothing to do with???[/quote]
Let’s not judge too harshly there are only so many things that one can get passed by a Congress that is not of ones own party. He had incredible success given the situation.
Maybe you are not aware of what Reagan inherited. Carter left an economic, as well as a foreign affairs mess:
1-Interest rates were 18%
2-Inflation was in runaway mode
3- Carter also created two new departments; The Department of Energy and the Department of Education, thus (like most democrats)creating yet a larger more inefficient government.
4-Iran held American hostages for well over one year. Carter was helpless to do anything about it and America continued to lose respect across the world.
I’m not so sure about that. If they do as we are suggesting then perhaps that is credibility enough. It’s not every group that has the ability to move one of the two major political parties in one direction or another.
Have you ever noticed that with every strong move in one direction there is an equally strong move in the opposite direction? Obama made the Tea Party, (just as he’s made Glenn Becks ratings go up and off the charts). When (if) Obama is defeated they too will fade from existence as there will be no need for them at that point.
[quote]And lastly…don’t be fooled…ALL media has become “biased”…including the “Murdock Money Machine”, FOX.
Mufasa[/quote]
Yes, I agree completely. Again, keep in mind that when there is one group moving strongly in one direction it is usually (eventually) answered by another moving in the opposite direction. CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN and the rest had it really good for a very long time, now FOX is on the scene as the opposing group.
On a side note we as Americans have not been this divided since the civil war. I always laugh at some of the posters who claim that they just don’t understand how we the people can allow Obama to get away with all of his spending etc. The fact remains that just about half the country (give or take) likes Obama. What does that tell you about the political polarization of America? We no longer go to the polls and vote for our guy and then wish the winner luck regardless of who he is. We go to the polls vote for one over another and then wish the worst on the other guy if he wins.
Politics has gotten mean spirited and ugly. I knew from day one what sort of President that Obama would be, I’m not at all surprised by what he’s doing. However, I personally wished Obama the best when he first took office, and I continue to wish him the best, as we need to succeed as a nation.
I fear for this country, not just because we are headed in the exact wrong direction as a nation, but that as a people we have lost our way.
What news letters are you talking about, and why do you continue to talk about Ron Paul? I have read many writings of Ron Paul you will have to be more specific.
If you are talking about his ghost writer, just continue to search the internet and find out the whole story.
Tho I do enjoy watching neo-cons pull the same race baiting stratagy out of their ass just like the democrats. Yep you are clearly showing just how the same you and the democrats really are. Maybe one day the republican party will wake up and throw the neo-cons out, until then I think I will just stick with the strategy of electing democrats and blowing up the bond bubble, and as a side bonus I will get to watch you neo-cons bitch and offer no alternatives, talk about cutting spending yet never talk about what you will cut.[/quote]
Translation: I don’t have a good defense, so I will instead respond with “go research it yourself” and then change the subject to accuse Paul critics of “race baiting”.
And, as for “neo-cons”, I thought it was the dread “Christian Conservatives” that you were whining about? I can’t keep up anymore.
[/quote]
No I am pretty sure I told you to go look it up because this is a Newt Gingrich thread not a Ron Paul thread.
Have you ever noticed that with every strong move in one direction there is an equally strong move in the opposite direction? Obama made the Tea Party, (just as he’s made Glenn Becks ratings go up and off the charts). When (if) Obama is defeated they too will fade from existence as there will be no need for them at that point.
[/quote]
Thats a pretty bold thing to say. What if the GOP offers up another Bush? The Tea Party will continue to grow, because if the GOP puts in a guy that will continue to crush civil liberties the Democrats will begin to flood into the tea party.
You realize that Clinton/Bush where the architect so to speak of this financial disaster, The Tea Party anger came about because of the bank bailouts, so to think that Obama triggered the Tea Party is wrong. Now if you where to say that the actions of Obama caused the movement to grow at a very fast rate then you would have a good argument, but at the same time who really knows if Mccain would have done anything that much different then Obama(I susspect not).
No I am pretty sure I told you to go look it up because this is a Newt Gingrich thread not a Ron Paul thread.[/quote]
Well, I am pretty sure you have no problem talking at length about Tea Parties on a New Gingrich thread, so your selective “relevance” as to what we should discuss is just more smokescreen from the simple fact that…wait for it…you can’t provide a defense of your hero Ron Paul w/r/t these God-awful newsletters.
Admit it, and move on with your life, and recognize that the newsletters and other assorted quackery defeats any notion you have that Mr. Paul is or was ever a viable candidate.
Have you ever noticed that with every strong move in one direction there is an equally strong move in the opposite direction? Obama made the Tea Party, (just as he’s made Glenn Becks ratings go up and off the charts). When (if) Obama is defeated they too will fade from existence as there will be no need for them at that point.
[/quote]
Thats a pretty bold thing to say. What if the GOP offers up another Bush? The Tea Party will continue to grow, because if the GOP puts in a guy that will continue to crush civil liberties the Democrats will begin to flood into the tea party.[/quote]
John, that might be one of the first things you’ve said on this thread that I actually agree with. I see the potentiality for that and do not look forward to that happening.
This may come as a surprise to my fellow republicans, but I blame Bush far, far more than Bill Clinton for this recent mess. The facts speak for themselves. Other than appointing two outstanding Supreme Court Justices, and holding the line on taxes GW pretty much let me down.
Something can trigger an action from an opposing group. However, I don’t believe that the action would have grown into the movement that it is today without Obama. Most reasonable people would agree.
I suspect that he would have. For one thing McCain was vehemently opposed to national health care. McCain was far from my first choice to represent the republicans in the Presidential race of 08, but with that said he would have been a whole lot better than Obama in terms of experience and his various political positions. Certainly his military background would have given him a huge advantage in foreign affairs. He had it all over Obama like a tent in every area. But of course he didn’t look as good, speak as well, or have a pretty smile so the American people didn’t especially like him. Who was it that said since the media age the best looking most charasmatic candidate has won? Oh yea, that would be me. Do you think in an age where more people vote for the American Idol than for President things are getting better? Um, nope.
Out of all of the people who currently hold political office at a national level I cannot think of one that would be worse for the office of President than Obama. He truly is not up to the task, and it shows more and more with each passing day.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
<<< a certain vision was needed, and, maybe most importantly, a certain sense of purpose and history. Reagan wasn’t successful because of dumb luck - he was the antidote to what was ailing America and exactly what America was looking for. >>>[/quote]I think this is the unquantifiable element that may have defined Reagan even more than the numbers. Reagan inspired people, even in spite of themselves. Whatever else anybody may say about him, he loved this country from the depths of his heart and he made people feel good about getting up in the morning in America.
There was none of this incessant guilt tripping talk of transformation which by definition means we’ve essentially sucked until this point in history. The attitude he brought out of the populace at large was as much responsible for his success as his policies in my opinion. We could use some of that about now.
Have you ever noticed that with every strong move in one direction there is an equally strong move in the opposite direction? Obama made the Tea Party, (just as he’s made Glenn Becks ratings go up and off the charts). When (if) Obama is defeated they too will fade from existence as there will be no need for them at that point.
[/quote]
Thats a pretty bold thing to say. What if the GOP offers up another Bush? The Tea Party will continue to grow, because if the GOP puts in a guy that will continue to crush civil liberties the Democrats will begin to flood into the tea party.
You realize that Clinton/Bush where the architect so to speak of this financial disaster, The Tea Party anger came about because of the bank bailouts, so to think that Obama triggered the Tea Party is wrong. Now if you where to say that the actions of Obama caused the movement to grow at a very fast rate then you would have a good argument, but at the same time who really knows if Mccain would have done anything that much different then Obama(I susspect not).[/quote]
You know I am actually happy that Obama won. You are right, if Juan McCain got elected there would have been little to no difference in the way that he would have run things. They are essentially funded by the same people (Goldman Sachs, AIPAC). I suspect it would have been alot more of the same…more bailouts, more stimulus, and more war.
At least now, we don’t have to hear the cries of how racist Americans are because they didn’t elect a black president. Well, more then we what we hear now anyway.