There is no way we are going to get a Republican President any time soon.
 

Way to many nut bags in the house. Rush, Gingrich, Palin. Too much us against those liberal idiots stuff. Too much hatred, racism, fear mongering. We need a moderate Republican president and we are not going to get one. Romney may be too weird, Santorum too weird and Gingrich too weird. We can't just come up with some normal moderate. why not? This just sucks. Wait till the Bush tax cuts end next year. Ouch! The dems aren't going away anytime soon and the Big O has done a pretty fair job as president, so let the republicans continue to polarize the country and they can sit and bitch and bitch and bitch for another 4 years.

No no no no no...

Obama has radically changed the direction of this country in pursuit of the socialist European ideal. He is incompatible with American values at the most fundamental of levels. Barack Hussein Obama is the single biggest threat to the future of our country.

Republicans similar to RONALD REAGAN have by contrast modeled themselves after RONALD REAGAN to do RONALD REAGAN like things in RONALD REAGAN like ways.

It really does just come down to this.

-spence

So Spence who do you vote for?

Too soon to tell. Romney showed some early promise but he's looked really bad the past few months.

Unless the GOP get's its act together voter turn out is going to be really low.

-spence

:rotf2::rotf2::rotf2::rotf2::rotf2::rotf2:

that's funnier than Obama buying a Volt

Haven't heard a laugh that fake since Romney's last stump speech.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If a Repub get's in it will only because it will be due to votes against
Obama not due to any great love for the Repub canidate.

Spence, you really are too funnie. :D

If you search the archives you'd find that I was a McCain supporter before he won the nomination and sold his soul.

-spence

I figured you were waiting and hoping for the draft of some super consevative
Repub to get the nomination and your vote. :hihi:

diebold will make it happen :hihi:

That is exactly how it will happen. :) :)

um Dave.... gotta watch your spellin there ol timer

just rememba it's not a DATE in a Can

it's a candy date :uhuh:

ISN'T THAT HOW IT USUALLY HAPPENS ? THIS IS WHY CANDIDATES SPEND MORE TIME TELLING YOU WHY YOU SHOULDN'T VOTE FOR THE OTHER GUY(S) RATHER THAN WHY YOU SHOULD VOTE FOR THEM:) THE TRACK RECORD BEING JUDGED IS THAT OF THE INCUMBANT....AND MANY WILL VOTE AGAINST THAT TRACK RECORD AND CONTINUING THE POLICIES AND TRAJECTORY :uhuh:

LOL Rav, I gotta drive my "Humaround" down to the
computer store and get one a those spell check thing a ma jigs. :hihi:
Seriously though, my spelling is horrible lately. :(

Thus the principle issue with our political candidates, the perpetual "I'm not as bad as he is" approach. One of these days, we will hopefully get away from the negative campaigns and people will actually campaign on their own merit, not an implied lack of merit with their opponent.

During the last election, I asked a friend why he was voting for McCain and his reply started, "well Obama... " You hear it time and time again, "I'm voting for so and so because that other guy sucks."

It's the same in how people defend the political party or politicians they align with. This forum is a perfect example. If there is a criticism of a Republican, the first reply is typically spun into something about Obama. Our expectations have gotten so low when it comes to our elected officials that it's almost impossible to defend the officials we support on their own merits.

We are stuck in a perpetual situation of electing the "lessor of two evils."

For sure. Except for this forum, I haven't heard any one say a good thing
about Obama for a over a year, and that includes a discussion as late as last Saturday morning with customers waiting on line at the Bagel Shop.

Amen, JD. :btu:

"Way to many nut bags in the house. Rush, Gingrich, Palin."

IMHO, there are far more nutbags on the other side (Anthony Weiner, Deb Washerman-Shultz, Barney Frank, Obama for that matter...and if you don't like Rush (and I'm no fan) take a look at the prime time line up at MSNBC.

Don't give up hope. A Romney-Rubio ticket will be quite formidable. Romney, once he's officially the candidate, will have broad appeal. It will likely come down to the economy. If unemployment keeps improving, and the stock market is up, Obama will be tough. If the market tanks, if gas prices hit $5 a gallon, Obama is very vulnerable.

"We can't just come up with some normal moderate. why not? "

We tried that in 2008 with McCain, didn't we? And again, why don't you consider Romney a moderate? He's a hell of a lot more moderate than Obama, who is probably the most ideologically extreme president we've ever had...

"the Big O has done a pretty fair job as president"

His approval ratings are below 50%. And wait till gas hits $5 a gallon...he's way more vulnerable than you seem to think...I give him an A- on killing terrorists, a resounding F on the economy (at this point, if a president doesn't at least TRY to do anything to address social security and medicare, they get an F).

"The dems aren't going away anytime soon"

Did you forget 2010 already? The GOP absolutely took the Dems out to the woodshed in 2010, and all the polls say that the GOP is only going to pick up more house and Senate seats this year (in 2010, the Dems were lucky in that very few Democratic senators were up for re-election, not so this year). However, the presidential contest will be tight, I think...

"let the republicans continue to polarize the country "

Our country is more divided now than any time since the Civil War, and that all starts with Obama IMHO. He's very, very divisive...When he says that people like me cling to our guns and religion because we are bitter and racist, when he says conservatives have to sit in the back of the bus, when he blames wealthy folks for everything except the Lindburgh baby kidnapping, nothing is more divisive than that. What has Romney said that's as polarizing as those things?

This presidential election, like most, will come down to two things.

(1) who gets the majority of independent voters in the 8 (or so) swing states. Obama is losing independents in droves, particularly in the states that matter (FL, NC, VA, PA, OH, CO, MN, WI). If Rubio is the VP, FL is no longer a swing state, and that's huge.

(2) which side has the more passionate turnout - the youth and black vote was very high in 2008 because of the Obama "cool" factor. Let's see if he can duplicate that. The Tea Party is still a major force in American politics. The Occupy anarchists have all moved back into their parents' basements.

Way too early to call, as it will all depend on the economy. I see this as the most important presidential election in our lifetime. Although if he gets re-elected,. the GOP will control the house and very likely the Senate, so he won't be able to do much.

At about this time Ronald Reagan's approval rating was below 40%...as the economy started to improve so did his favor-ability.

It will all depend on the economy and right now the market is trending up, consumer confidence is trending up, jobs are trending up etc...the timing for Democrats couldn't be better.

This Republican primary might just leave the GOP as damaged goods. Romney will still be the likely nominee and on perhaps their biggest campaign issue -- repealing the Health Care Bill -- you have an opponent who we now know actually did advocate for the individual mandate at the Federal level.

07/30/09 - Mr. President, What's the Rush? | Mitt Romney Central

I didn't think it could get any worse for them, but it has.

Voter turn out is going to be low and this will help Obama. The vacancy in ME will also help the Democrats hold the Senate. Everything I've read indicates the GOP will lose House Seats.

You're over thinking the gas price issue. If anything people associate Obama as anti-big oil profits.

Independent voters don't see Obama as "the most ideological President ever", that's your fringe position. They look at his actual record which is left-center. Given a left-center Obama vs a right-center Romney and it's a wash...the incumbent wins because they're the devil you know.

The BIG wildcard here is Iran. If the Middle East erupts it could swing the entire election one way or the other based on how it's handled.

-spence

At least he waited 2.5-years to flip-flop this time, not 2.5 hours (like the blunt amendment)

And the proverbial "my side isn't as bad as that other group" defense. I appreciate the timing.

Tried it with McCain, then he chose Palin as his running-mate. A decision that, still to this day, I believe is the sole reason he lost that election. Palin is anything but a moderate. And with regards to Romney, he's so spineless that no one knows where he is any more. He's as moderate or conservative as the group he is pandering to. I've said this before, Romney is the guy in the room that yells "Hey, I can be Conservative too. Let me show you."

I don't think the polarization all starts with Obama. I think his stance against the Republicans is a product of a polarizing buildup that has been happening since the latter part of Clinton. While their has been some slight decrease lately, there is no denying the obstructionist-agenda the Republicans have been pursuing since taking a majority in the House. At the same time, Obama has been just as unwilling to bend as the Republicans have been.

While Obama is losing independents in droves, the Republican primary that is focused on "who's the most conservative candidate" isn't doing anything to win those votes.

At least you subtly admit that the GOP obstruction will continue.

"It will all depend on the economy and right now the market is trending up, consumer confidence is trending up, jobs are trending up etc"

Agreed. You also left out that the debt is trending up, and we should ask ourselves if the benefits we're seeing are worth the bill that we'll be sticking our kids with. The answer to that question may be "yes", by the way. But I'm not sure reducing unemployment to 8% is necessarily a good thing, if we bankrupt ourselves to get there. That's obviously an oversimplification of a complicated issue. But we should be talking about what he spent to get his results, is all I'm saying.

"the timing for Democrats couldn't be better."

Sure it could - the election is 6 months away, in case you didn't know. You don't want to peak too early. I'm not saying that's what's happening, I'm just saying if the market tanks in October, no one will care what it did in February.

"This Republican primary might just leave the GOP as damaged goods."

That's your fringe opinion. Chances are (after super Tuesday), Romney will be the lock, and that's 6 months before the election. Back in 2008, Hilary and Obama were in a brutal slugfest right up until the convention. I don't remember hearing you (or anyone) say then, that the primary would leave the Democrats as "damaged goods". Why the difference in opinion? Why is a bitter contest good for Democrats, but bad for Republicans?

"The vacancy in ME will also help the Democrats hold the Senate."

As of today, there are 33 Senate Democrats that are retiring or up for re-election. Only 10 Republicans are retiring or up for re-election. I'll make you any gentleman's wager you choose that the GOP has a net increase in the House and in the Senate.

'Everything I've read indicates the GOP will lose House Seats."

Given what I imagine your reading list to be, that doesn't surprise me, or worry me, in the least. You just keep believing what you read in The Huffington Post and in The Daily Worker.

"You're over thinking the gas price issue."

We'll see this summer, won't we.

"The BIG wildcard here is Iran. If the Middle East erupts it could swing the entire election one way or the other based on how it's handled."

Agreed. The economy and Iran are 2 huge factors.

What were the tax rates back then? They must have been really low, right? :devil2:

"Tried it with McCain, then he chose Palin as his running-mate. A decision that, still to this day, I believe is the sole reason he lost that election. "

Johnny, I hear this all the time. All the time. And it's demonstrably false. After McCain picked Palin, he surged ahead of Obama in the polls, and he stayed right there until the economy tanked.

I'm not saying I think Palin was qualified, or even that she was a good candidate (in my opinion). I'm saying that the economy, not her selection, doomed McCain. The polls at that time validate my theory, and dispute yours.

"there is no denying the obstructionist-agenda the Republicans have been pursuing since taking a majority in the House."

Agreed. That's also what heppend when there's a Republican president and a Democrat-controlled legislature.

"While Obama is losing independents in droves, the Republican primary that is focused on "who's the most conservative candidate" isn't doing anything to win those votes."

You might be right. Maybe the independents aren't enthralled with Romney. But as they flee Obama, there's only one other realistic place to go. If "choosing the lesser of 2 evils" it what it takes to get this Mao-ist out of the Oval Office, I'm OK with that. I'd rather have a GOP candidate that actually energizes folks. But winning this election is what's important, not how you play.

"At least you subtly admit that the GOP obstruction will continue."

I don't subtly admit, I'll say it explicitly. And furthermore, I say "thank God" for their obstructionism. If one believes in a radically conservative idea (oh, for example, that $60 trillion in debt is a bad thing), is such a person supposed to capitulate to Obama and give him a blank check?

When the Democrats resisted Bush, I kept hearing that "dissent was the highest form of patriotism". Now that Obama wears the crown, those same folks claim that dissent is the lowest form of racism.

My solution is to throw all the bums out (both parties), and elect normal people who actually know how to do things, with very strict term limits. We need true civilian legislators, not career politicians who want to stay in DC their whole lives to show what a big lasagna they are.

Taxes were high then. And what did Reagan do? All he did was contribute significantly to the collapse of the Soviet Union, giving hundreds of millions of human beings a shot at freedom.

Lots of folks consider that money well spent.

Obama is spending more than Reagan did, with far less to show. When kids as-yet unborn enter the workplace 25 years from now and face staggering income tax rates, we're going to tell them that Obama spent their money to get unemployment (25 years earlier) down from 9% to 8%. Is that money well spent?

Maybe yes and maybe no. Time will tell.

Zimmy and Spence, how much debt are you comfortable with saddling on the backs of kids not born yet? Obviously there was lots of debt before Obama got elected, it's not all his fault. But he is adding to it more than any president in our history. I'd just liek to know how much debt you're willing to saddle future generations with.

Our current debt is around $15 trillion, and that excludes asocial security and medicare. Throw those in, and the debt is at least $60 trillion. That's $200,000 for every living American. $200,000 on top of what our current tax rates will generate.

Obviously, we cannot take an additional $200,000 from every American, not even close. That means one of two things. Either (1) the Chinese will tell us not to bother re-paying them, or (2) future generation will be burdened with debt they had lkiterally no say in accumulating.

Zimmy and Spence, what do you think?

I think independent voters see the debt problem as bi-partisan.

I think we're trending strong and the economy will continue to gain strength if global instability doesn't disrupt it.

No, it's a mainstream opinion. Hell, the biggest critics of the Republican contestants are the leading conservative media outlets.

We've covered this before. With Obama and Clinton the party saw 2 viable options. With the GOP the party doesn't see any viable options.

Your numbers are wrong. It's 21 Democrat, 2 Independent and 10 Republican. Additionally, the majority of Democrat races are in Blue or Purple states.

I'll take your wager.

I think they're linked. If Iran blows up it will put a large strain on the economy.

-spence

It almost pains me to say this, but I don't think we're all that far off from each other. :grins: It's pretty much a wait-and-see situation right now. The only thing I don't agree with you on is how much the price of gas will affect Obama. Once he was elected (so, putting aside the hollow campaign promises), Obama has been pretty consistent. Included in that consistency is his drive towards Clean Energy. He took a lot of heat with Solyndra (sp?), but at the same time, he has continually pressed that we need to stop s#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&g oil from Middle East nipples. With that in mind, I think he will be able to *leverage* the high fuel prices and (as I stated in another thread) displace blame for high fuel costs onto the Republicans refusing to vote on energy reform.

Couldn't agree with you more on this one.

"I think independent voters see the debt problem as bi-partisan."

If you think independents don't see a difference on the debt issue between liberals and conservatives, I disagree.

"I think we're trending strong and the economy will continue to gain strength if global instability doesn't disrupt it."

I can't refute that...

"No, it's a mainstream opinion. Hell, the biggest critics of the Republican contestants are the leading conservative media outlets."

Spence, when all you do is look for folks who bash the GGOP, you'll find them...

"Your numbers are wrong. It's 21 Democrat, 2 Independent and 10 Republican."

Sorry, typo on my part, I meant 23 for Dems/independents...

'Additionally, the majority of Democrat races are in Blue or Purple states."

You're missing the point. The races in the purple states are exactly where you are vulnerable, as opposed to CT for example. Democratis seats being contested include the following states...NE, NM, ND, VA, WI, FL, MN, MO, MT, OH, PA).

"I'll take your wager."

$25 to the charity of the loser's choice? I win if the GOP makes gains in both the house and the senate. Otherwise, you win. Aggressively setting the bar for me, but I'm confident. Are you in?

right... :) don't count on it......

The Election of 1828 Was Marked By Dirty Tactics
The Campaign That Elected Andrew Jackson President Was Brutal

By Robert McNamara

The election of 1828 was significant as it heralded a profound change with the election of a man widely viewed as a champion of the common people. But that year's campaigning was also noteworthy for the intense personal attacks widely employed by the supporters of both candidates.

The incumbent John Quincy Adams and the challenger Andrew Jackson, could not have been more different. And perhaps the one thing they had in common was that they both had long careers of public service, one diplomatic and one military.

By the time the votes were cast, both men would have wild stories circulated about their pasts, with lurid charges of murder, adultery, and procuring of women being plastered across the pages of partisan newspapers.

Background to the Election of 1828

The two opponents in the election of 1828 had faced each other before, in the election of 1824, a peculiar affair which became known as “The Corrupt Bargain.” The 1824 race had to be decided in the House of Representatives, and it was widely believed that Speaker of the House Henry Clay had used his considerable influence to give the victory to John Quincy Adams.

Jackson's furious campaign against Adams essentially resumed as soon as Adams took office in 1825, as "Old Hickory" and his supporters worked diligently to line up support around the country. While Jackson’s natural power base was in the south and among rural voters, he managed to align himself with the New York political power broker Martin Van Buren. With Van Buren’s guidance, Jackson was able to appeal to working people in the north.

The 1828 Campaign Takes Shape

In 1827 supporters in both the Adams and Jackson camps began concerted efforts to undermine the character of the opponent. Even though the two candidates had strong differences on substantial issues, the resulting campaign turned out to be based on personalities and tactics which were outrageously underhanded.

The 1824 election had not been marked with strong party affiliations. But during the Adams administration the defenders of the status quo began calling themselves "National Republicans." Their opponents began calling themselves "Democratic Republicans," which was soon shortened to Democrats.

The 1828 election was thus a return to a two-party system, and was the precursor of the familiar two-party system we know today.

Careers Become Fodder for Attacks

For those who detested Andrew Jackson, there was a goldmine of material, as Jackson was famed for his incendiary temper and had led a life filled with violence and controversy. He had taken part in several duels, killing a man in a notorious one in 1806. When commanding troops in 1815, he had ordered the execution of militia members accused of desertion. Even Jackson’s marriage became fodder for campaign attacks.

Those opposed to John Quincy Adams mocked him as an elitist. The refinement and intelligence of Adams were turned against him. And he was even derided as a “Yankee,” at a time when that connoted shopkeepers reputed to take advantage of consumers.

Coffin Handbills and Adultery Rumors

Andrew Jackson’s reputation as a national hero was based on his military career, as he had been the hero of the Battle of New Orleans, the final action of the War of 1812. His military glory was turned against him when a Philadelphia printer named John Binns published the notorious “coffin handbill,” a poster showing six black coffins and claiming the militiamen Jackson had ordered executed had essentially been murdered.

Jackson's wife Rachel had been married to another man before Jackson, and a question arose about when her first husband had divorced her and when she began living with Jackson. The explanation was that Jackson and his wife believed she had been divorced when they first married, but there was (and still is) some legitimate doubt about the timing.

Jackson’s marriage on the frontier nearly 40 years earlier became a major issue in the 1828 campaign. He was accused of adultery and vilified for running off with another man’s wife. And his wife was accused of bigamy.

Attacks on John Quincy Adams

John Quincy Adams, the son of founding father and second president John Adams, began his career in public service by working as the secretary to the American envoy to Russia when he was still a teenager. He had an illustrious career as a diplomat, which formed the basis for his later career in politics.

The supporters of Andrew Jackson began spreading a rumor that Adams, while serving as American ambassador to Russia, had procured an American girl for the sexual services of the Russian czar. The attack was no doubt baseless, but the Jacksonians delighted in it, even calling Adams a “pimp” and claiming that procuring women explained his great success as a diplomat.

Adams was also attacked for having a billiard table in the White House and allegedly charging the government for it. It was true that Adams played billiards in the White House, but he paid for the table with his own funds.

Adams Recoils, Jackson Participates

As these scurrilous charges appeared in the pages of partisan newspapers, John Quincy Adams reacted by refusing to get involved with the campaign tactics. He was so offended by what was happening that he even refused to write in the pages of his diary from August 1828 until after the election.

Jackson, on the other hand, was so furious about the attacks on himself and his wife that he got more involved. He wrote to newspaper editors giving them guidelines on how attacks should be countered and how their own attacks should proceed.

Jackson Wins the Election of 1828

Jackson's appeal to the "common folk" served him well and he handily won the popular vote and the electoral vote. It came at a price, however. His wife Rachel suffered a heart attack and died before the inauguration, and Jackson always blamed his political enemies for her death.

When Jackson arrived in Washington for his inauguration he refused to pay the customary courtesy call on the outgoing president. And John Quincy Adams reciprocated by refusing to attend the inauguration of Jackson. The 1828 campaign stayed bitter and nasty to the end.

Republicans are much more vocal with what they believe, and they're a lot more aggressive if you disagree with them. So democrats just shut their mouths and pull the lever.
Reagan pre-dated the rise of Christian Conservatism, and he just destroyed Carter in the debates.
Republicans have to wind in the religious nuts and put somebody out there talking dollars. Think Reagan's, Goldwater's brand of conservatism, not Palin's, Santorum's brand of conservatism.

So true
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Those were the days..
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No, I read just about everything.

The only state you list where the GOP has a great chance is Nebraska, a few like Florida or Maine could go either way.

Deal, what charity are you going to pick? :devil2: :hihi:

-spence

please tell us more:uhuh:

One of Ronald Regan's first executive orders was to cut the overtime federal withholding tax for hourly workers so it was no greater than their straight time rate.
It used to be, if you worked overtime, your federal withholding was at a higher rate than your straight 40 - and you didn't get back the additional at tax time, regardless of deductions. You effectively were penalized for working o.t..
He reached out to the clock punchers and gave them a bone, and a greater incentive to increase productivity.

that's how you sum up Reagan and Goldwater Conservatism and how it differs from Santorum and Palin Conservatism?

“Mr. Conservative” – Barry Goldwater and the Genesis of the Conservative Movement

In the 1950s, Barry Morris Goldwater emerged as the nation’s leading conservative politician. It was Goldwater, along with his growing legion of “Goldwater Conservatives,” who brought the concepts of small government, free enterprise and a strong national defense into the national public debate. These were the original planks of the conservative movement and remain the heart of the movement today. In the late 1950s, Goldwater became closely associated with the anti-Communist movement, and was an avid supporter of Sen. Joseph McCarthy. Goldwater stuck with McCarthy until the bitter end and was one of only 22 members of Congress who refused to censure him. Goldwater supported desegregation and civil rights to varying degrees. He got himself into political hot water, however, with his opposition to legislation that would eventually turn into the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Goldwater was a passionate Constitutionalist, who had supported the NAACP and had backed previous versions of civil rights legislation, but he opposed the 1964 bill because he believed it violated states’ rights to self-govern. During the Republican National Convention in 1964, Goldwater gave perhaps the most conservative acceptance speech ever uttered when he said, “I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”

I don't think Reagan varied much from Goldwater on issues of smaller government, states rights, individual liberty, free enterprise and national defense....nor do Palin or Santorum as far as I know...

from Kengor's book....Mr. Kengor wrote, “[Reagan’s] belief in God was a key source of his optimism and his boldness, his daring and self-security, and his confidence; these essential intangibles carried him throughout his presidency — and career as a whole — and enabled him to achieve what he did.”

Reagan’s words "Those who created our country — the Founding Fathers and Mothers — understood that there is a divine order which transcends the human order. They saw the state, in fact, as a form of moral order and felt that the bedrock of moral order is religion. ... The truth is, politics and morality are inseparable. And as morality’s foundation is religion, religion and politics are necessarily related. We need religion as a guide. We need it because we are imperfect, and our government needs the church, because only those humble enough to admit they’re sinners can bring to democracy the tolerance it requires in order to survive."

"Without God, there is no virtue, because there’s no prompting of the conscience. Without God, we’re mired in the material, that flat world that tells us only what the senses perceive. Without God, there is a coarsening of the society. And without God, democracy will not and cannot long endure. If we ever forget that we’re one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under."
Mr. Reagan was a loyal supporter of the unborn and spoke of the need for a constitutional amendment to permit voluntary school prayer.


where Goldwater differs from Reagan, Palin and Santorum politically and what some would like to include in their version of "Goldwater Conservatism" is his later libertarian views on pot, abortion and gay marriage...they don't embrace his Conservative views but rather, his moderation on these issues.......Goldwater and Reagan had a little problem with Communism and Socialism...get yourself to and democrat or leftist rally and notice how much Communist and Socialist literature is being handed out...the democrat party is the home to America's socialist and communists...still waiting for Spence to name a Democrat Constitutionalist in Congress:uhuh:

Joe....if you long for the Reagan and Goldwater Conservatism based on small government, Constitutional governance, free enterprise, state's rights, individual liberty.... I'd suggest to you that the only place where this still resides is among the "nuts" that you appear to have a problem with...these principles are completely absent in the current democrat party...

so Joe...who do you vote for???

Your lead is one sentence. That's why my reply was short. Yet your retort is about 900 words? I'm familiar with Goldwater Conservatism, but I prefer the Objectivism of Ayn Rand that influenced Goldwater considerably. Moreover, what you've done here is bad form; you should bait fish, not people.

I cited one Reagan policy. But it was that policy which did more for working Americans to dispel the idea that republicans "are all for the rich" than all the talk that never improved a working person's life.

I did not cite Goldwater policy because there is none. He lost. Goldwater is regarded as a conservative theorist. Theorist is a charitable term they designate to losing politicians who influence other politicians. Whatever the loser does later when his marbles start to go is amusing or disturbing, but not policy.

Reagan pulled from Goldwater, but was astute enough not to go too far. "Morning in America," was a better approach to the people than Goldwater's failed, scary warnings. I voted for Reagan.

Communism failed worldwide in 1989, with the exception of North Korea, Cuba, and China (which has moderated considerably) - and it's not making a comeback.

Reagan won the Cold War by engaging in an arms race that bankrupted the USSR when they tried to keep up. Sure, it ratcheted up debt, but the nukes were never launched. The Cold War was won through diplomacy, and by outspending the Russians - the best formula for victory we could reasonably hope for. It's behind us now. Regan possibly saved the world.

America is not going socialist regardless of how much leftist literature is handed out by the Occupy Movement. We simply can't afford it.

you said "think Goldwater/Reagan Conservatism....not Santorum/Palin's brand of"......I asked for more regarding your take on the differences....you've not offered anything so far....I was just wondering as you threw that out there...... as though the differences were obvious:confused:

glad to see someone else gets up early too:)

That might well be the most stunningly inaccurate thing I've ever heard. Anarchy has become almost synonymous with the word "liberal".

"democrats just shut their mouths and pull the lever". Yeah, we never hear a peep from Democrats like Al Sharpton, or the Hollywood crowd...

Democrats are peaceful in their dissent? You mean those same Occupiers who took over the Brooklyn Bridge?

When was the last time you ever heard of a right-wing riot? Earth to Joe...it almost never happens.

When was the last time a liberal tried to speak, at say a college, and the stage was stormed by conservative protesters? Why is it always the liberals who storm the stage to keep conservatives from speaking?

I've heard some strange things here. I've never heard anyone suggest that conservatives are more feral or anarchist than liberals.