bang

[PN-G bamatex]

Fortunately for democrats, republicans will most likely shoot themselves in the foot during the primaries, where they force candidates to lean extremely right.
 

 

I don't agree with that either. There are rumors coming from party insiders about a much more strongly controlled primary process in 2016. We may see no more than four candidates in the primary (Bush, Romney, Huckabee and Paul are the four I'm thinking will be in it right now) and a primary season that's over early in the summer. It looks like the Republican leadership is making the same adjustments the Democrats made in 1972.

[PN-G bamatex]

If the republicans run a REAL conservative instead of dim light as they have the past two election cycles, billary won't stand a chance......

 

I definitely don't agree with that. I could go into why, but it's easier to just post this:

 

http://www.cw.ua.edu/article/2015/01/o-republican-revolution

[RETIREDFAN1]

I definitely don't agree with that. I could go into why, but it's easier to just post this:

 

http://www.cw.ua.edu/article/2015/01/o-republican-revolution

 

 

Putting up milksop, quasi-liberals like romney and mccain wasn't the answer......the only way the republicans stand a chance at winning is to put up a REAL Conservative, not one who pays lip service to conservative values.......when the blue bloods and elitists in the establishment wake up to that fact, there will be another Republican in the White House......

[PN-G bamatex]

Putting up milksop, quasi-liberals like romney and mccain wasn't the answer......the only way the republicans stand a chance at winning is to put up a REAL Conservative, not one who pays lip service to conservative values.......when the blue bloods and elitists in the establishment wake up to that fact, there will be another Republican in the White House......

 

You didn't read the article, did you?

[EnlightenedMessiah]

You guys need a REALLLL conservative like Palin

#palin2016

#trueconservative

[mat]

Republicans have to survive themselves and the media. They blew themselves apart in the last primary. The bias media is another hurdle.

[RETIREDFAN1]

You didn't read the article, did you?

I read it.....he sounds like karl rove....another liberal republican trying to claim to be a Conservative.......

[RETIREDFAN1]

You guys need a REALLLL conservative like Palin

#palin2016

#trueconservative

 

She's about as conservative as mccain or graham........

[EnlightenedMessiah]

Lol really...

She's about as conservative as mccain or graham........

[RETIREDFAN1]

Republicans have to survive themselves and the media. They blew themselves apart in the last primary. The bias media is another hurdle.

The only ones' "blowing themselves apart" are the establishment liberals in the party who enjoy the status quo......they see no problem with the way things are deteriorating and have no qualms about trashing The Constitution as long as they keep getting elected......

[EnlightenedMessiah]

The media bias excuse is old and tired.

Fox News is #1 in ratings (until the old people who get their news from chain emails die off)

Republicans have to survive themselves and the media. They blew themselves apart in the last primary. The bias media is another hurdle.

[RETIREDFAN1]

The media bias excuse is old and tired.

Fox News is #1 in ratings (until the old people who get their news from chain emails die off)
 

 

 

FoxNews is a paid puppet of the liberal establishment wing of the republican party....the only real conservative on there is Hannity........

[bullets13]

Putting up milksop, quasi-liberals like romney and mccain wasn't the answer......the only way the republicans stand a chance at winning is to put up a REAL Conservative, not one who pays lip service to conservative values.......when the blue bloods and elitists in the establishment wake up to that fact, there will be another Republican in the White House......

If republicans mistake disenfranchised voters swinging their way in individual elections as an indication that the country as a whole is interested in their conservative stances on many issues (again), then the voters will swing right back to the left in another few years.

[LumRaiderFan]

If republicans mistake disenfranchised voters swinging their way in individual elections as an indication that the country as a whole is interested in their conservative stances on many issues (again), then the voters will swing right back to the left in another few years.

 

The only conservative stances I'm concerned about are smaller fed gov so I can pay less taxes...leave social issues to the states.

[bullets13]

The only conservative stances I'm concerned about are smaller fed gov so I can pay less taxes...leave social issues to the states.

And if republicans will stick to this approach, they have a much better shot at maintaining the seats they've gained in the house and senate.

[PN-G bamatex]

I read it.....he sounds like karl rove....another liberal republican trying to claim to be a Conservative.......

 

I'm conflicted about whether or not to take that as a compliment.

 

I was looking for some kind of rebuttal to the argument presented in that article. Thus far, I have yet to hear one. For all these claims of "we need a true conservative" and "we haven't had a true conservative since Reagan" and "a true conservative would win these elections easily," I have yet to see the proof, and a lot of evidence supporting the contrary.

 

In the first place, we have had true conservatives since Reagan. Calling anyone in the Bush family anything less than a true conservative is a farce and an insult; the only arguably moderate things ever done in either Bush presidential administration were a tax hike done as part of a budget deal (that's called negotiation, and it used to be a necessary part of life in Washington) and TARP (which was, in my opinion, the government cleaning up a mess it spent three decades making, calling into question it's "non-conservative" nature). If you want to tally conservative actions versus non-conservative actions by either Bush while in office, the fact is the first column would vastly outweigh the second. In state politics, both Jeb and W. were conservative governors who represented their constituencies well while still managing to get bipartisan deals done.

 

Further, we've had plenty of "true conservatives" in the Republican presidential primaries. For the sake of argument, I'll remove Mitt and McCain from consideration. That leaves the likes of Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Mike Huckabee, and Michelle Bachmann, all of whom had considerable tea party support at various points during their campaigns. Now let me ask you, if they couldn't even win the Republican primaries in a primary system that strongly favors rural states during election cycles where the tea party was a much stronger force then it is now, what makes you think they could win a general election?

 

The bottom line is, just like I said in that article, this "true conservative" rationale is self-defeating and dangerous to both the Republican Party and the long-term interests of this country. It is irrational, and frankly mathematically stupid, to immediately dismiss someone you agree with on 70% of the issues or more because of that 30% or less you disagree about, and effectively hand an election to a candidate you agree with 10% of the time or less. That is not an effective way to run a party, to win an election or to get anything done in Washington. And that sort of uncompromising, unforgiving mentality is why this party is in the tough spot it's in when it comes to the country's only nationwide election, not some lack of "true conservatives."

[EnlightenedMessiah]

The level of crazy has just reached new highs

FoxNews is a paid puppet of the liberal establishment wing of the republican party....the only real conservative on there is Hannity........

[LumRaiderFan]

I'm conflicted about whether or not to take that as a compliment.

 

I was looking for some kind of rebuttal to the argument presented in that article. Thus far, I have yet to hear one. For all these claims of "we need a true conservative" and "we haven't had a true conservative since Reagan" and "a true conservative would win these elections easily," I have yet to see the proof, and a lot of evidence supporting the contrary.

 

In the first place, we have had true conservatives since Reagan. Calling anyone in the Bush family anything less than a true conservative is a farce and an insult; the only arguably moderate things ever done in either Bush presidential administration were a tax hike done as part of a budget deal (that's called negotiation, and it used to be a necessary part of life in Washington) and TARP (which was, in my opinion, the government cleaning up a mess it spent three decades making). If you want to tally conservative actions versus non-conservative actions by either Bush while in office, the fact is the first column would vastly outweigh the second. In state politics, both Jeb and W. were conservative governors who represented their constituencies well while still managing to get bipartisan deals done.

 

Further, we've had plenty of "true conservatives" in the Republican presidential primaries. For the sake of argument, I'll remove Mitt and McCain from consideration. That leaves the likes of Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Mike Huckabee, and Michelle Bachmann, all of whom had considerable tea party support at various points during their campaigns. Now let me ask you, if they couldn't even win the Republican primaries in a primary system that strongly favors rural states during election cycles where the tea party was a much stronger force then it is now, what makes you think they could win a general election?

 

The bottom line is, just like I said in that article, this "true conservative" rationale is self-defeating and dangerous to both the Republican Party and the long-term interests of this country. It is irrational, and frankly mathematically stupid, to immediately dismiss someone you agree with on 70% of the issues or more because of that 30% or less you disagree about, and effectively hand an election to a candidate you agree with 10% of the time or less. That is not an effective way to run a party, to win an election or to get anything done in Washington. And that sort of uncompromising, unforgiving mentality is why this party is in the tough spot it's in when it comes to the country's only nationwide election, not some lack of "true conservatives."

 

I like Bush but the increases to health care (Medicare Modernization) and education under him are nothing close to conservative...he, like many big gov Republicans, feel like the fed gov is the answer to many of our problems.

 

I am ready for someone that actually feels we need to shrink the fed gov...not holding my breath.

[PN-G bamatex]

I like Bush but the increases to health care (Medicare Modernization) and education under him are nothing close to conservative...he, like many big gov Republicans, feel like the fed gov is the answer to many of our problems.

 

I am ready for someone that actually feels we need to shrink the fed gov...not holding my breath.

 

Medicare Modernization pushed Medicare along the path to greater privatization. I don't see how that can be painted as anything other than a preexisting program taken in a conservative direction.

 

The only thing that NCLB really did was attach strings to preexisting federal funding. That's liberal in the sense that the federal government played an augmented role in a sphere that had traditionally been under the purview of the states. It's conservative in the sense that it made sure our tax dollars weren't going to keep funding mediocrity. Either way, education has a proven economic benefit, so at best, it's politically neutral.

[RETIREDFAN1]

I'm conflicted about whether or not to take that as a compliment.

 

I was looking for some kind of rebuttal to the argument presented in that article. Thus far, I have yet to hear one. For all these claims of "we need a true conservative" and "we haven't had a true conservative since Reagan" and "a true conservative would win these elections easily," I have yet to see the proof, and a lot of evidence supporting the contrary.

 

In the first place, we have had true conservatives since Reagan. Calling anyone in the Bush family anything less than a true conservative is a farce and an insult; the only arguably moderate things ever done in either Bush presidential administration were a tax hike done as part of a budget deal (that's called negotiation, and it used to be a necessary part of life in Washington) and TARP (which was, in my opinion, the government cleaning up a mess it spent three decades making, calling into question it's "non-conservative" nature). If you want to tally conservative actions versus non-conservative actions by either Bush while in office, the fact is the first column would vastly outweigh the second. In state politics, both Jeb and W. were conservative governors who represented their constituencies well while still managing to get bipartisan deals done.

 

Further, we've had plenty of "true conservatives" in the Republican presidential primaries. For the sake of argument, I'll remove Mitt and McCain from consideration. That leaves the likes of Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Mike Huckabee, and Michelle Bachmann, all of whom had considerable tea party support at various points during their campaigns. Now let me ask you, if they couldn't even win the Republican primaries in a primary system that strongly favors rural states during election cycles where the tea party was a much stronger force then it is now, what makes you think they could win a general election?

 

The bottom line is, just like I said in that article, this "true conservative" rationale is self-defeating and dangerous to both the Republican Party and the long-term interests of this country. It is irrational, and frankly mathematically stupid, to immediately dismiss someone you agree with on 70% of the issues or more because of that 30% or less you disagree about, and effectively hand an election to a candidate you agree with 10% of the time or less. That is not an effective way to run a party, to win an election or to get anything done in Washington. And that sort of uncompromising, unforgiving mentality is why this party is in the tough spot it's in when it comes to the country's only nationwide election, not some lack of "true conservatives."

 

w spent money like a drunk sailor...nothing conservative there......he also foisted the patriot act upon us.....nothing conservative there......w was a liberal as they come.....a wolf in sheeps clothing........

[LumRaiderFan]

Medicare Modernization pushed Medicare along the path to greater privatization. I don't see how that can be painted as anything other than a preexisting program taken in a conservative direction.

 

The only thing that NCLB really did was attach strings to preexisting federal funding. That's liberal in the sense that the federal government played an augmented role in a sphere that had traditionally been under the purview of the states. It's conservative in the sense that it made sure our tax dollars weren't going to keep funding mediocrity. Either way, education has a proven economic benefit, so at best, it's politically neutral.

 

The true conservative answer to these problems is to realize the fed gov has no role in these areas...it should not fund excellence and it should not fund mediocrity.

 

Too many so called conservatives still believe the fed gov should be involved in powers not granted to it in the Constitution and for good reason...it was intended to be handled by the states.

[PN-G bamatex]

w spent money like a drunk sailor...nothing conservative there......he also foisted the patriot act upon us.....nothing conservative there......w was a liberal as they come.....a wolf in sheeps clothing........

 

W. spent money like a drunken sailor?

 

Bush 43's average deficits were roughly half of Obama's average deficits. Most of Bush's deficits stemmed from unfunded liabilities in the form of preexisting programs that came due when the baby boom generation started hitting the right ages (i.e., Medicare, Social Security, etc.). In fact, in that regard, Bush saved us some money; I can't imagine what we'd be spending on Medicare had we not reformed Part C to force the private health care providers to get competitive. The only spending that is truly a result of the Bush administration is the spending on Homeland Security and the War on Terrorism, which was a fraction of the deficit and an absolute necessity following 9/11.

 

That brings us to the Patriot Act, in which case I'll say your assertion is just flat out wrong. There's plenty in that bill that's conservative. In fact, I think it's fair to say that was an extremely conservative security bill passed with overwhelming support in the hysteria and paranoia following 9/11. Are there parts of it that I don't agree with? Absolutely. There are parts of it that I think are an outright affront to our core liberty interests. I nonetheless look at it as a highly defensive bill passed by a highly defensive nation in the wake of the worst attack on American soil in US history - in essence, that it was a natural result of the circumstances. In any case, that's beside the point, which is simply this: while the Patriot Act may have gone too far, it's no secret that strong national defense is a core value for conservatives, and the Patriot Act went a long way toward shoring up that defense.

[PN-G bamatex]

The true conservative answer to these problems is to realize the fed gov has no role in these areas...it should not fund excellence and it should not fund mediocrity.

 

Too many so called conservatives still believe the fed gov should be involved in powers not granted to it in the Constitution and for good reason...it was intended to be handled by the states.

 

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States...."

 

See that general welfare part? I've got news for you: no modern day Supreme Court justice - not even Justice Scalia - is ever going to accept an interpretation of the US Constitution in which "general welfare" is not construed broadly enough to allow for spending on a public health or education issue. The justices provide "extreme deference" (there's a reason that's in quotation marks) to the legislature on that matter. Trust me. I've read more majority opinions than I can count.

 

I can agree, on principle, that public health is an issue best left to the states. That doesn't change the fact that Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, for better or worse, are federal programs. They've been around for sixty years and they're not going anywhere. Whatever the principled approach may be, the practical one is to accept the reality that none of those programs will ever be broken up and handed to the states, and that conservatives will just have to do the best they can with what they've got.

 

Where education is concerned, the situation is similar. Obviously, it's not quite as drastic given that the federal government, even with NCLB, is nowhere near as involved in education as they are in public health, and that states have exercised much firmer control over education issues than public health issues throughout our history, but the fact of the matter is that DOE isn't going away. We might as well get something for the money.

[LumRaiderFan]

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States...."

 

See that general welfare part? I've got news for you: no modern day Supreme Court justice - not even Justice Scalia - is ever going to accept an interpretation of the US Constitution in which "general welfare" is not construed broadly enough to allow for spending on a public health or education issue. The justices provide "extreme deference" (there's a reason that's in quotation marks) to the legislature on that matter. Trust me. I've read more majority opinions than I can count.

 

I can agree, on principle, that public health is an issue best left to the states. That doesn't change the fact that Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, for better or worse, are federal programs. They've been around for sixty years and they're not going anywhere. Whatever the principled approach may be, the practical one is to accept the reality that none of those programs will ever be broken up and handed to the states, and that conservatives will just have to do the best they can with what they've got.

 

Where education is concerned, the situation is similar. Obviously, it's not quite as drastic given that the federal government, even with NCLB, is nowhere near as involved in education as they are in public health, and that states have exercised much firmer control over education issues than public health issues throughout our history, but the fact of the matter is that DOE isn't going away. We might as well get something for the money.

 

Here's another fact...if we continue down the path we're on, the results will be financially catastrophic.

 

Regardless of how a SC justice interprets the phrase...we are becoming exactly what our Founding Fathers attempted to guard against.

 

The fed gov cannot continue to grow like it has...do you disagree with that statement?

[PN-G bamatex]

Here's another fact...if we continue down the path we're on, the results will be financially catastrophic.

 

Regardless of how a SC justice interprets the phrase...we are becoming exactly what our Founding Fathers attempted to guard against.

 

The fed gov cannot continue to grow like it has...do you disagree with that statement?

 

I agree that spending cuts are necessary as a matter of national life and death. The issue of whether education and public health are federal or state issues, however, is not, except where financial matters are concerned and solely where financial matters are concerned.

 

On the subject of the Founding Fathers' interpretations of the Constitution regarding the safeguards they implemented to protect against government gone wild, the earliest Supreme Court interpretations of the Constitution interpreted the Bill of Rights as limitations only on the federal government, not the state governments, and favored very broad interpretations of federal powers such as the Commerce Clause. It wasn't until the Fourteenth Amendment that things as basic as Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion and the Right to Bear Arms were incorporated as restrictions on the state powers as well. The Founding Fathers saw popular sovereignty as the strongest defense against a federal government that is too powerful, with the codified limits on federal power setting up the framework for public debate. This means that they felt public opinion should be the deciding factor on matters such as whether the federal government has gotten too big except in the most extreme cases, and I doubt public opinion would favor doing away with the Department of Education, Medicare or the rest. Additionally, George Washington himself sided with federalists more times than not, embracing a stronger national government and in particular a stronger executive branch. Therefore, it's hard for me to accept that things like the Department of Education, Medicare and so on are outright affronts to the Founding Fathers' views. I think it's reasonable to say that they would have felt these things better handled by the states (again, in principle, I feel the same way), but I don't think they would be horrified at the thought of the federal government becoming involved in them.