[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

So you left, unexplained, the dangling "it all depends" to explain how the electorate might be insane if it elected a scary Republican. No doubt it's just personally unique to me, but that made me laugh.

There is such a diagnosis as temporary insanity

What would hard to the left on foreign policy be?

Pacifism.

What does hard to the left in immigration mean?

Amnesty.

Would insisting that States cannot implement immigration policies to help in the capture and deportation of illegals be hard left?

Not if it's seen to conflict with existing Federal law or Constitution.

Would taxing the rich at even higher rates than the already higher progressive rates be hard left?

You'd have to define "even higher" but the real lefties would like taxes to be really, really high. Much higher than Obama who is still lower than Reagan.

Would raising taxes in a depression be hard left?

This is an economics question dependent on the situation. Taxes can't always be lowered or we have no revenue.

Would spreading the wealth be hard left?

Depends if that's an attitude or description. Even most flat tax proposals by staunch conservatives spread the wealth.

Would insisting that the Constitution is lacking because it does not prescribe what the government can and must do for the people be hard left?

I've never heard anyone say the Constitution is "lacking" unless you mean an activist attitude.

Take out the individual mandate and there is no health care bill. The bill requires that hard left provision. Much of what has been proposed by Republicans in the last 20 or more years has been leftist. As I've said in this forum before, the Republican party today is about the same or even left of the JFK Democrats. The Democrat party since FDR has steadily pushed the so-called "center" to the left, the Republicans following to survive, so that both parties have accepted the drift away from the Consitution and toward the growth of Central power. The MSM even criticized Nixon for being an autocrat. And the Repubs have gone to the left of Nixon.

The republicans leading the conservative revival all cite Reagan as their model yet by many measures Reagan was acting like a lefty as well. Have we ever had a true conservative leader? Perhaps Ike?

Yes, his two Supreme Court appointments do seem relatively like radicals.

Radicalism isn't a relative condition, it's quite tangible. See your post on insanity above

Bush has acted as a lefty when he handed out dollars and bailed out private industry. Those are not conservative actions just because a Republican (see above) did them. Increasing the size of our debt to unsustainable amounts is not conservative. It is very liberal.

I don't think increasing the debt is a "liberal" condition as much as an "irresponsible" condition.

Both Carter and Reagan are responsible for large defense programs that created our first large federal debt. National Defense is Constitutional so was this action liberal or conservative? If taxes are raised to pay down debts incurred by Constitutionally mandated services in an effort to balance the budget is that a conservative or liberal action?

And the predictable response that...if the federal government stuck to within its Constitutional yada yada yada is a cop out answer. There are no mulligans, we have to solve problems with the situation as it exists right now.

Hard to the left of what? To the left of "real" conservatives? Or to the left of current mainstream Republicans that have shifted left for many years. So, are you admitting that "real" liberals are hard left?

I don't think there are that many "real liberals" out there. Certainly less than 20% of the population. Conservatives on the other hand get to enjoy much larger enrollment, which hides the reality that there are many sub-brands that at times really don't agree on much.

What favors Obama most in the general election is the nomination of another Republican who is Democrat light. If there is no significant difference between candidates, why change?

As I said above, because I think people are looking more for responsible government rather than a big ideological change.

The "majority" doesn't realize that independant regulatory agencies are unconstitutional. There is a great need, if we are to preserve this republic, to re-educate the masses as to where they actually derive their rights and what those rights are.

Re-education? You're starting to sound like one of Thomas Sowell's "intellectuals"

We have, as the great "middle" become complacent to accept the power of the Federal Government, as if it were always so, and is perfectly Constitutional. There has been an intentional hoodwinking of this great public to believe and accept that.

I think the one positive element of the current debate is that people are more aware to the idea that the elected leaders don't act in a very responsible manner, with the growth trajectory of the Federal Debt the past few decades as the leading symptom.

A re-awakening of individual responsibility and power as being the true central driving force of a free society would reveal that a shift of proper responsibility back to the States where it belongs will reduce the risk and uncertainty of an overreaching, all-powerful Central Government and leave the people a far greater diversity of ways to "fix" our problem.

I would agree that increased individual responsibility is most always a good thing. But I also think that given the consolidation of wealth in this nation the influence of industry on our governments behavior (at all levels) the individual is today somewhat limited on how free they really could be, even with less Federal interference. Before you could unwind your "unconstitutional" Federal obligations, you'd need to re-establish government by and for the people. While the Tea Party seems to think this is what they're after, I don't buy it, not at least with their current political leadership.

-spence