Tonight---Round #3--will anyone watch?

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by carltonplace

"rugged individualism" a term straight from Herbert Hoover

And?

[carltonplace]

Hoover's cry for rugged individualism to resolve the great depression didn't do much more than make the depression greater. Getting to the root cause: putting people to work is what helped get us back on our feet. That took government intervention.

[iplaw]

No. Hoover's failure was raising taxes in a depressed economy.

Obama appealed last night to personal responsibility, which is inexorably tied to rugged individualism.  I didn't see you bashing him.

Individualism produces excellence in our personal lives. People are useless in a group setting or a community if they lack personal responsibility and integrity.  The chain is only as strong as its weakest link.

Furthermore, individualism is the catylist for the greatest of all economic advantages for the US, competition.

[we vs us]

Interesting.  Conservatism cannot fail, it can only be failed.  

Has there been a successful conservative president since Reagan?  If not, I'd venture to say that maybe Reaganism isn't repeatable.  

[mrburns918]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

I'm not buying it.  

The "religious right" is a paper tiger, or better yet, a strawman.  If the religious right were in charge of this party then we would have ended up with Huckabee.  Palin was not chosen because McCain needed to appeal to the religious right, else again, he could have chosen Huckabee as you so rightly stated.  She was chosen for a variety of other reasons which have been stated ad nauseam and have nothing to do with "religious" issues. The plain facts are that he was behind until he chose Palin.  She energized conservatives and continues, to this day, to draw crowds which rival Obama's.

For example, Reagan had cross over appeal and won over many Democrats who ended up voting for him in his second race.  If there were ever a voice for unabated, wholehearted belief in conservative principles, it was him.  He did not engender favor from democrats by degrading his own party as McCain is famous for.  Nor did he engender favor by standing for bigger government, higher taxes and additional encroachment into our lives.

I don't believe the religious right is in charge, but I do believe the imeshing of conservative values with the extreme religious right has taken place over the years which has backed the party into a corner. Candidates not being able to stray from a rigid agenda are taking a hard hit among voters. Especially when they try to appease both. I also believe the imeshing has dumbed down the party.

Huckabee is one who many would call extreme religious right but I think his personality, leadership abilities and more importantly his intellect would have appealed to the Reagan democrats. He is open to dialog. Picking Palin for whatever reason proves my point about the damage of imeshment.

Yep, Ronald Reagan was a true leader and one of America's greatest presidents. Even if you didn't like him at least you knew he was respected around the world and would represent America well. I watched the "American Experience" documentary on public television a couple of weeks ago. Seeing Reagan talk and campaign really magnified what a pathetic state the party has become since then.

Mr. Burns
Bob Barr for President

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by we vs us

Interesting.  Conservatism cannot fail, it can only be failed.  

Has there been a successful conservative president since Reagan?  If not, I'd venture to say that maybe Reaganism isn't repeatable.  

It is.  But we have unfortunately nominated candidates that don't believe in conservatism, hoping that candidates like McCain would appease the middle and/or pickpocket dem voters.  Just like any political monster, Reps would rather "win" an election than hold to their principles, even when doing so isn't popular.  

For example, the bailout bill.  A fiscal conservative would have voted against it, even though it would not have been popular.  And from what we heard from Bernanke yesterday, the bailout bill will not be able to stave off the coming international recession.

But McCain, out of fear, decided to vote with the masses because, hey, who wants to be the guy that tanks the economy?  Even though the bailout has done virtually nothing and Bernanke is even admitting it.  Many people like Dave Ramsey were telling us this was going to be the case, but guess what happens when you make decisions in a hurried and haphazard fashion.  We made emotional decisions out of fear, and I am concerned that the fix may be worse than the problem.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

I think I will pretend to be German tonight instead.  I pretty much know the substance of this one.

No need to pretend.  You are a NAZI aren't you?

Does that mean this thread has been Godwinned??

How did you know?  Is it THAT obvious?

[iplaw]

What I still can't manage to figure out, is why Gallup has the race at only 2% for Obama today.  NOTHING, and I mean NOTHING that was said last night by McCain impressed me.

It was the same regurgitated lines from both of them.  The only difference was the "Joe the Plumber" story.  Could it be that Obama's "spread the wealth" comment may be his undoing?

I don't get why the polls (Gallup, Zogby and Rasmussen)are closing in on Obama, honestly.

[Hoss]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

What I still can't manage to figure out, is why Gallup has the race at only 2% for Obama today.  NOTHING, and I mean NOTHING that was said last night by McCain impressed me.

It was the same regurgitated lines from both of them.  The only difference was the "Joe the Plumber" story.  Could it be that Obama's "spread the wealth" comment may be his undoing?

I don't get why the polls (Gallup, Zogby and Rasmussen)are closing in on Obama, honestly.

Because polls are just that..polls.  I see many of them with Obama up 12, I see the expanded gallup wiht him up 6.  I just think polls can't be counted on when the race is like this (tight).

The polls that matter post-debate are the ones from the undecideds, who really gave the debate to Obama.

[Conan71]

I had to go up to NE OK this morning and listened to Boortz's take on it.  He spent about 1/2 hour going over McCain's missed opportunities last night, they were many.

I really didn't believe McCain would get nominated.  I admire his patriotism and truly believe he's always wanted to make a difference, but he's really hard to get excited about.

He's only slightly more exciting than Bob Dull.

The GOP needs to take a page out of the DNC book and try running someone younger and more charismatic next time.  Running mates don't count.  I don't think Quayle helped Bush in '88.  That was all Reagan's coattails.

I hate to concede, but it's not looking well for McCain.  He might have been able to beat Hillary, but I've had my doubts about an Obama match-up ever since McCains campaign was revived from life-support last year.

[we vs us]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

quote:Originally posted by we vs us

Interesting.  Conservatism cannot fail, it can only be failed.  

Has there been a successful conservative president since Reagan?  If not, I'd venture to say that maybe Reaganism isn't repeatable.  

It is.  But we have unfortunately nominated candidates that don't believe in conservatism, hoping that candidates like McCain would appease the middle and/or pickpocket dem voters.  Just like any political monster, Reps would rather "win" an election than hold to their principles, even when doing so isn't popular.

But my question still stands.  Why do the Republicans NOT nominate candidates who believe in conservatism?  If Reagan was such a huge hero, why don't more people emulate him?

My suggestions are either 1) there aren't enough true-blue Reagan conservatives to nominate or 2) conservatism isn't really that popular outside the base, and needs to be watered down to sell to a bigger audience.    

And the bailout is a perfect example. Congressional Republicans were stuck between their prinicples (laissez faire capitalism) and reality (an economy in dire need of direct and immediate assistance).  In this case, reality won out.  So, were Congressional Republicans wrong because they sold out their principles, or were they right because they what the situation demanded?  Or is it possible that the principles themselves were all wrong?

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by we vs us
But my question still stands.  Why do the Republicans NOT nominate candidates who believe in conservatism?  If Reagan was such a huge hero, why don't more people emulate him?

My suggestions are either 1) there aren't enough true-blue Reagan conservatives to nominate or 2) conservatism isn't really that popular outside the base, and needs to be watered down to sell to a bigger audience.

Because we buy into the lie that we need to appear quasi-democrat to appeal to independents.  I don't think there is any question that Reagan was a hero to many. Reagan is a hard act to emulate.  He was a powerful orator, but he also believed in the principles he stated. I think having a candidate for the last two elections who couldn't get his point across, we would have settled for anyone.  Not that W is actually a fiscal conservative.

Reagan didn't win by a landslide because the people were craving a left leaning message. The American people still believe in the core values of conservatism in low taxes, smaller government, personal responsibility and ancillary ideas like the right to bear arms.  If you can show me that this is not the case then I would agree with you.

quote:
And the bailout is a perfect example. Congressional Republicans were stuck between their prinicples (laissez faire capitalism) and reality (an economy in dire need of direct and immediate assistance).  In this case, reality won out.  So, were Congressional Republicans wrong because they sold out their principles, or were they right because they what the situation demanded?  Or is it possible that the principles themselves were all wrong?

I don't think there was a delimma at all.  I think principles like a free market economy should be followed because they actually work.  This doesn't mean that there should be no oversight, but artifical involvement, like the bailout, will probably do nothing to stave off the coming recession here or internationally.  Reality didn't win out, that's why Bernanke said that an international crisis will probably be unavoidable.

There are some problems which have no "fix" and they must be allowed to follow to their natural conclusion and fail.  We cannot be saved from every crisis. Until we actually see the bottom, we're working with imaginary numbers that have been manipulated by artificial means. We still don't know what the real value of the markets are even today.  That's why we continue to have several hundred point swings every day.

So in short, any Republican that voted for that sorry donkey bill didn't have faith in a system that works.  200 years of success are enough proof for me.

Free market principles have produced the most prosperous country the world has ever seen.  American companies are the center of R&D for almost every technology sector.  If it weren't for US big pharma, the rest of the world wouldn't have cheap, effective medication.  If it weren't for American farmers, kids in Africa wouldn't eat.  The list goes on and on.

Backhanding the free market and pushing lenders to give mortgages to people who wouldn't or didn't qualify for traditional mortgages is at the heart of this crisis.

We have to get away from thinking everything is a "right" that every American is entitled to. Home ownership is the American dream and is a priviledge; it is not a "right."  A college education is not a "right" it is a priviledge.

[mrburns918]

quote:Originally posted by we vs us

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

quote:Originally posted by we vs us

Interesting.  Conservatism cannot fail, it can only be failed.  

Has there been a successful conservative president since Reagan?  If not, I'd venture to say that maybe Reaganism isn't repeatable.  

It is.  But we have unfortunately nominated candidates that don't believe in conservatism, hoping that candidates like McCain would appease the middle and/or pickpocket dem voters.  Just like any political monster, Reps would rather "win" an election than hold to their principles, even when doing so isn't popular.

But my question still stands.  Why do the Republicans NOT nominate candidates who believe in conservatism?  If Reagan was such a huge hero, why don't more people emulate him?

My suggestions are either 1) there aren't enough true-blue Reagan conservatives to nominate or 2) conservatism isn't really that popular outside the base, and needs to be watered down to sell to a bigger audience.    

And the bailout is a perfect example. Congressional Republicans were stuck between their prinicples (laissez faire capitalism) and reality (an economy in dire need of direct and immediate assistance).  In this case, reality won out.  So, were Congressional Republicans wrong because they sold out their principles, or were they right because they what the situation demanded?  Or is it possible that the principles themselves were all wrong?

The minute the Republican Party started using tactics started by Lee Atwater and then Karl Rove is when the party moved away from true conservatism. It became divisive with an either you are with us or you are one of them. If you think about it, the moves that scumbag Rove did could only alienate people who generally voted Democrat. Heck, it even alienated within the party. Like you said, It is no longer about the issues, it's about getting your guy elected by any means, even if it goes against conservative principles. We talk about change, but Republicans settle for the same morons every election just like the democrats do claiming the lesser of two evils. Republicans are no better than democrats. Even at the end of his life, Atwater at least asked for forgiveness for the evil he invoked on his victims. Why wouldn't he? If you were a moral person would you not think the tactics used by Atwater and Rove are immoral? I believe these tactics could be used and defended , if the party believed in the seperation of church and state. If you are going to invoke a moral stand while campaigning you are going to have to practice what you preach. Remember, lying is sin, even when Republicans do it.  

All one has to do is look at the first presidential Reagan ran, it's like night and day compared to the sleaze of the past ten years.

Mr. Burns
Bob Barr for President

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by we vs us

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

quote:Originally posted by we vs us

Interesting.  Conservatism cannot fail, it can only be failed.  

Has there been a successful conservative president since Reagan?  If not, I'd venture to say that maybe Reaganism isn't repeatable.  

It is.  But we have unfortunately nominated candidates that don't believe in conservatism, hoping that candidates like McCain would appease the middle and/or pickpocket dem voters.  Just like any political monster, Reps would rather "win" an election than hold to their principles, even when doing so isn't popular.

But my question still stands.  Why do the Republicans NOT nominate candidates who believe in conservatism?  If Reagan was such a huge hero, why don't more people emulate him?

My suggestions are either 1) there aren't enough true-blue Reagan conservatives to nominate or 2) conservatism isn't really that popular outside the base, and needs to be watered down to sell to a bigger audience.    

And the bailout is a perfect example. Congressional Republicans were stuck between their prinicples (laissez faire capitalism) and reality (an economy in dire need of direct and immediate assistance).  In this case, reality won out.  So, were Congressional Republicans wrong because they sold out their principles, or were they right because they what the situation demanded?  Or is it possible that the principles themselves were all wrong?

If every state had closed primaries like Oklahoma, I might be able to buy into that.  It's hard to take a scientific approach to that issue when liberal Dems and Inds can vote in the GOP primary.  That dilutes the "true" conservative vote.

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by mrburns918
The minute the Republican Party started using tactics started by Lee Atwater and then Karl Rove is when the party moved away from true conservatism. It became divisive with an either you are with us or you are one of them. If you think about it, the moves that scumbag Rove did could only alienate people who generally voted Democrat. Heck, it even alienated within the party. Like you said, It is no longer about the issues, it's about getting your guy elected by any means, even if it goes against conservative principles. We talk about change, but Republicans settle for the same morons every election just like the democrats do claiming the lesser of two evils. Republicans are no better than democrats. Even at the end of his life, Atwater at least asked for forgiveness for the evil he invoked on his victims. Why wouldn't he? If you were a moral person would you not think the tactics used by Atwater and Rove are immoral? I believe these tactics could be used and defended , if the party believed in the seperation of church and state. If you are going to invoke a moral stand while campaigning you are going to have to practice what you preach. Remember, lying is sin, even when Republicans do it.  

All one has to do is look at the first presidential Reagan ran, it's like night and day compared to the sleaze of the past ten years.

Mr. Burns
Bob Barr for President

I know this is more of an esoterical point, but it always amuses me when people attack Karl Rove because he was divisive and then use divisive, angry statements to make their point...

You're obsessed with the idea that the religious right is running the party.  If that were the case, McCain wouldn't be the nominee.

You're shadow boxing a boogie man.

As to your points about church/state separation, I'm not following you.  Maybe you could explain it differently or rephrase it.