[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Detbuch, it's a pretty big leap, I think, to assume that a GOP president would be so wishy washy that they wouldn't even be pro business. I'll grant you that if we elect a republican like you describe, it's not much of a victory...though even a republican that pathetic would be a huge improvement over Hilary. But I don't think any republican running would be as bad as what you describe. But the fact is, the country isn't ready to elect a hard line tea party/libertarian like I assume you and I might both like, but it's not going to happen. I want to nominate the most conservative candidate who is electable. Let me ask you...if the choice is we nominate a moderate who will win, or nominate a hard liner who will lose to Hilary, is one of those two scenarios closer to your ideal than the other, or not?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Up until a couple of years or so ago, I was of the same mind as you. First win, then govern well. But, in retrospect, it appears to me that the Bush's and their "ilk" (a term you like to use) in Congress messed that little formula up. They won, but, being "moderate," they governed that way instead of governing what I would think of as "well." They wasted the "trajectory" (to use a Spencist perspective for "balance") that Reagan started.

Looking back, Reagan didn't run as a moderate. Because of Goldwater's shellacking by Johnson before that, the Repubs were afraid to appear too "hard line conservative" when Reagan tried for the nomination the first time. So they went more moderate and he lost to Ford. Of course Ford lost to Carter. But, if I remember correctly, Carter actually seemed to be, in some ways, more "conservative" than Ford, especially so as he ran as a "born again" Christian.

Of course, Carter was so inept that Reagan beat him and then later easily won a second term. But he had won the Republican nomination AGAINST the desire of the establishment Republicans, again, because they feared he was too "conservative."

Reagan chose Bush Senior for VP for political rather than ideological reasons. And, after being elected POTUS on Reagan's coattails, Bush Sr. slid back into the more pleasant "moderate" mode. Duh! So when he ran again, the choice would be Democrat heavy vs. Democrat lite. Actually, most Americans would rather go for the gusto, so Bush Senior bit the dust and was a one-termer. His son was touted as a "conservative," when he ran for Pres., even by such as Rush Limbaugh. But he basically turned out to govern as a Progressive-lite and even more "moderate" than his father. But he was a likeable cuss, "heh heh," and won a second term. So, guess what . . . the Repubs kept sliding into moderacy and came up, after Bush, with everybody's, especially the media's, favorite moderate Republican, John McCain. Ohhh . . . he was so nice and moderate in his tone and message running against Obama, he almost seemed not to mind at all that he got whupped by his also very "moderate" sounding opponent.

Of course, Obama has lost the "moderate" flavor and is coming across as immoderate to the left of any Pres. since Wilson and FDR. And Hillary seems to be only a little right, if at all, to Obama's leftism. So, maybe an actually "moderate" Republican could beat her.

But, as in the past, moderate Republicans govern moderately, not conservatively. And the trajectory would continue, therefor, in that direction. Just at a bit slower pace.

But as we approach the finish line of this moderate trajectory, the pace becomes less relevant. Though it may have taken longer, when it is over, the length of time won't matter. And certainly, Obama has been in a freakish overdrive to get to the finish line in the fundamental transformation of America, and has sped up the process at a dizzying pace.

And I no longer buy notions such as "moderate" or "hard liner." Certainly don't agree that true "conservatism" is extremist. I still like Goldwater's "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!" It took merely the progressive way--propagandistic "interpretation" and phony twisting of those words --to discredit Goldwater.

But there comes a point where you either take the path to Reagan's "rendezvous with destiny," or you just give it up. I am very pessimistic that yet another "moderate" will lead us to that rendezvous. Rather, it will just weaken any will to strive for it. It will just be a temporary hiatus or slow down in the inevitable opposite direction.

I don't buy that a "hard line" will lose. I don't believe the line is "hard." That is a characterization, a fiction, a "narrative" spouted by the elites, the progressive minded "moderates" who rule the party. Truth, justice, freedom, are not moderate. And if the real truth is that the people prefer warm fuzzy moderate lies and utopian propaganda, and dependence rather than responsibility, then the race is over. Voting will then have become irrelevant.

I think the reason Scott Walker is such a buzz, not with the establishment Repubs, but with the rank and file, is that he fiercely stood up against everything the Dems and their union cohorts threw at him in Wisconsin. He didn't try to moderate. He stood his ground, stood firm in what he believed was the right thing to do for his state. He is a fighter. He would not negotiate away the principles by which he governed. And he won. Again and again. I don't think that is being "hard." It is being principled. And I don't care about his views on abortion, or religion, or family values. I don't want him to share those with me, nor to try to bend the rest of us to his will on those matters, as President.

I think that his appearing to stand against progressivism, as a political mode, in governing as President, and being limited constitutionally rather than ruling as an autocratic Progressive, makes him not only attractive to people like me, but would be so to a majority of voters. I think Ted Cruz, maybe even more so, speaks as though he would govern that way and stand firm against the expansion of federal executive power. But he may have been successfully demonized.