Saw this somewhere last night...

[nathanm]

Um, yeah, erfalf. Reagan was too liberal for the Tea Party, not too conservative.

[AquaMan]

T-town, you've got to know he's not going to read all that!

[erfalf]

T-town, you've got to know he's not going to read all that!

So you're telling me that the Republican party is to the right of this?

[AquaMan]

Told 'ya.

I was on the planet, a good reader and paying attention at the time. Reagan in office wasn't the same guy who ran for office. And he was too liberal for today's conservative Republicans. Heck, Goldwater was blown off by his party just before his death when he bitched about how the party was fringe.

[erfalf]

Told 'ya.

I was on the planet, a good reader and paying attention at the time. Reagan in office wasn't the same guy who ran for office. And he was too liberal for today's conservative Republicans. Heck, Goldwater was blown off by his party just before his death when he bitched about how the party was fringe.

But comparing apples and apples, you're saying that this guy as a candidate would have no shot becuase the party is too conservative. Further, what did he do in office that was much more liberal than what Republican's have been doing over the last ten years?

[Ed W]

What about that ardent cultural warrior and arch-conservative so extreme that the Republican party dare not speak his name?  And no, I'm not talking about Bush II, though there's some excellent material for discussion.  Instead, I'm thinking about Richard Milhouse Nixon, the Republican president who tried to control our economy by controlling both wages and prices. It had been done before, of course - in wartime - but Nixon decided to control inflation by controlling every aspect of the economy.  How's that for over-reaching government power?

Dick Nixon didn't get half the kicking around he deserved.

[AquaMan]

But comparing apples and apples, you're saying that this guy as a candidate would have no shot becuase the party is too conservative. Further, what did he do in office that was much more liberal than what Republican's have been doing over the last ten years?

You're stretching comments to their breaking point. Reagan won because of his personality, his optimism, his charisma during a dismal time. I don't doubt it would carry him to leadership positions in todays world too but not because of his conservative credentials. No offence, but I suggest you do a bit more research into those two decades, 1970-1988 instead of asking me to defend your lack of diligence.

[erfalf]

You're stretching comments to their breaking point. Reagan won because of his personality, his optimism, his charisma during a dismal time. I don't doubt it would carry him to leadership positions in todays world too but not because of his conservative credentials. No offence, but I suggest you do a bit more research into those two decades, 1970-1988 instead of asking me to defend your lack of diligence.

I understand perfectly well the history of Reagan (drink!). However, I think you and I are not connecting on this because you are trying to say that Reagan (drink!) did things that would be considered quit liberal even in today's standards. I agree. Although I would argue that he was too gullible in trusting congress when he agreed to raise taxes. But, I challenge you to find someone who wouldn't say that he is the most conservative President in modern history. The main sticking point with many conservatives was that he took a pass on many social issues (which I don't particularly care for either). More conservative than any President since. So my point was, that I think it is a ruse by the media to keep claiming that the Republicans are too conservative, when in fact it seems that they have become too liberal for Reagan. Again, look at the recent track record at least at President. Look at what the two Bushes have done. Dole wasn't conservative enough so Perot ran and screwed everything up. McCain was widely considered one of the most moderate Senators. And Romney, well Romneycare anyone. There is no way these men are anywhere near as conservative in deed than Reagan (DRINK!).

On the flip side, Obama has not been near as extreme in his actions (again, based only on what he has actually done). In fact he has continued many of the policies of that conservative bastion George W. Bush.

Just for fun I posted a video below of how the Republicans have been called too extreme all the way back to 1988.

http://www.mrctv.org/videos/mrc-video-flashback-tv-reporters-always-scold-gop-too-conservative

[AquaMan]

I understand perfectly well the history of Reagan (drink!). However, I think you and I are not connecting on this because you are trying to say that Reagan (drink!) did things that would be considered quit liberal even in today's standards. I agree. Although I would argue that he was too gullible in trusting congress when he agreed to raise taxes. But, I challenge you to find someone who wouldn't say that he is the most conservative President in modern history. The main sticking point with many conservatives was that he took a pass on many social issues (which I don't particularly care for either). More conservative than any President since. So my point was, that I think it is a ruse by the media to keep claiming that the Republicans are too conservative, when in fact it seems that they have become too liberal for Reagan. Again, look at the recent track record at least at President. Look at what the two Bushes have done. Dole wasn't conservative enough so Perot ran and screwed everything up. McCain was widely considered one of the most moderate Senators. And Romney, well Romneycare anyone. There is no way these men are anywhere near as conservative in deed than Reagan (DRINK!).

On the flip side, Obama has not been near as extreme in his actions (again, based only on what he has actually done). In fact he has continued many of the policies of that conservative bastion George W. Bush.

Just for fun I posted a video below of how the Republicans have been called too extreme all the way back to 1988.

http://www.mrctv.org/videos/mrc-video-flashback-tv-reporters-always-scold-gop-too-conservative

You didn't go back far enough. Goldwater was painted as extreme. Even farther back was Adlai Stevenson who was painted as dangerously extreme, liberal and weak. Roosevelt's extremism was going to destroy our economic foundations. And on, and on. This particular path you are taking is fruitless.

Your problem is that you think its the press painting the picture. They are not the artist. The party has painted this masterpiece and one need only do a little research or shift channels occasionally to determine that. Moderates within the party who used to see it as the counterweight to Democratic financial excess now are leaving or ignoring the party as the weight is now too far right. They can no longer identify. Abortion. Women's rights. Birthers. These are not fringe. Boehner, Ryan et all carry those flags.

To call Reagan gullible is real fantasy and heretical within the party. He did seem to be suffering some Alzheimers late in the second term and definitely outmaneuvered by some other politicians, but gullible is different.

[heironymouspasparagus]

I understand perfectly well the history of Reagan (drink!). However, I think you and I are not connecting on this because you are trying to say that Reagan (drink!) did things that would be considered quit liberal even in today's standards. I agree. Although I would argue that he was too gullible in trusting congress when he agreed to raise taxes. But, I challenge you to find someone who wouldn't say that he is the most conservative President in modern history. The main sticking point with many conservatives was that he took a pass on many social issues (which I don't particularly care for either). More conservative than any President since. So my point was, that I think it is a ruse by the media to keep claiming that the Republicans are too conservative, when in fact it seems that they have become too liberal for Reagan. Again, look at the recent track record at least at President. Look at what the two Bushes have done. Dole wasn't conservative enough so Perot ran and screwed everything up. McCain was widely considered one of the most moderate Senators. And Romney, well Romneycare anyone. There is no way these men are anywhere near as conservative in deed than Reagan (DRINK!).

On the flip side, Obama has not been near as extreme in his actions (again, based only on what he has actually done). In fact he has continued many of the policies of that conservative bastion George W. Bush.

Just for fun I posted a video below of how the Republicans have been called too extreme all the way back to 1988.

http://www.mrctv.org/videos/mrc-video-flashback-tv-reporters-always-scold-gop-too-conservative

Keep studying your history...you just don't get it yet.

[erfalf]

Keep studying your history...you just don't get it yet.

How so? I understand you're not a mean guy and you don't want to just call me nieve or stupid or whatever, but your patronization isn't much better. I understand that Republicans have been called extreme for quit some time now, yet the party (from my perspective mind you) appears to be moving in a more liberal direction (at least by what they actually do, not what they say). I don't want a simple, you don't get it. answer.

[erfalf]

You didn't go back far enough. Goldwater was painted as extreme. Even farther back was Adlai Stevenson who was painted as dangerously extreme, liberal and weak. Roosevelt's extremism was going to destroy our economic foundations. And on, and on. This particular path you are taking is fruitless.

Your problem is that you think its the press painting the picture. They are not the artist. The party has painted this masterpiece and one need only do a little research or shift channels occasionally to determine that. Moderates within the party who used to see it as the counterweight to Democratic financial excess now are leaving or ignoring the party as the weight is now too far right. They can no longer identify. Abortion. Women's rights. Birthers. These are not fringe. Boehner, Ryan et all carry those flags.

To call Reagan gullible is real fantasy and heretical within the party. He did seem to be suffering some Alzheimers late in the second term and definitely outmaneuvered by some other politicians, but gullible is different.

I actually don't watch Fox news regularly. Shocking as this may sound I generally watch MSNBC (except some of the evening hosts, they are too out there for me) & CNN (I know, I'm one of the three that does, shocking!).

I just see what Republicans have done when in control (during Bush in particular) and it looks more and more liberal to me. How am I wrong. I mean the federal government has grown more than any other time largely under Republican control. Maybe I am jaded, but I am just not seeing this too extreme thing. I mean, heck the couple of speeches I watched last night at the convention were some of the most down the middle, who wouldn't agree with those things, speeches I've ever seen. No mention of extreme liberals or social nonsense to be heard.

And the gullible thing, I only say that because congress promised spending cuts and reneged after the taxes were raised. Never trust Democrats right?

[AquaMan]

How old are you Erfalf? One wonders if you have the perspective to note that your party is getting more liberal unless you have a firm grip on their past status. More liberal than when? Reagan? Just can't imagine anything to suggest that. More liberal than before the T-Party exacted so much power within the party? Before Bachmann? Ryan?

I can see that you are confusing conservatism and liberalism with the real mission of political parties...money and power. "Bidness". Of course they will talk middle of the road if that is what it takes to get to the money and power. Especially at a convention. But you must listen closer to the players when their jobs are not at stake. The financial meltdown was a business fiasco, not a political left or right failing. The same people who were enjoying money and power were also writing the regulations for business and jumping back and forth from private business to public business to do so.

We lose that battle every time. What is left is social issues and whose people are going to be running our lives and how deeply they intend to do so. So, yeah, all things aside, the Republican party is way more conservative today than...30 years ago.

[Conan71]

The current GOP has defined their conservatism with their social issues.  In that vein, the GOP has become far more conservative.  In fiscal terms Reagan wouldn't recognized all these "Reagan Conservatives" who have been blowing money like drunken sailors since 2001. 

[erfalf]

How old are you Erfalf? One wonders if you have the perspective to note that your party is getting more liberal unless you have a firm grip on their past status. More liberal than when? Reagan? Just can't imagine anything to suggest that. More liberal than before the T-Party exacted so much power within the party? Before Bachmann? Ryan?

I can see that you are confusing conservatism and liberalism with the real mission of political parties...money and power. "Bidness". Of course they will talk middle of the road if that is what it takes to get to the money and power. Especially at a convention. But you must listen closer to the players when their jobs are not at stake. The financial meltdown was a business fiasco, not a political left or right failing. The same people who were enjoying money and power were also writing the regulations for business and jumping back and forth from private business to public business to do so.

We lose that battle every time. What is left is social issues and whose people are going to be running our lives and how deeply they intend to do so. So, yeah, all things aside, the Republican party is way more conservative today than...30 years ago.

Look I get it, I'm young (30) and don't have first hand knowledge of this stuff. But I understand how things work too. I get what political parties are for and why they are a huge threat to our freedoms. But what I don't get is how the Republican party (for lack of a better name) is considered more radically conservative than ever (when they have been saying that since way before the Tea Party, Bachman, etc. mind you), when most of the policies at the federal level have been more big government than ever. Sure there are some outliers and stupid legislation, but I would contend that stupidity knows no political party. And just because you guys say its true doesn't make it so.

And I understand we live in Oklahoma so the issue may be more pronounced here, so maybe that's it. I just find it hard to believe that the party that has been labeled too conservative for at least the last 25 or 30 years and still keeps getting its members elected, is really too conservative at all.

Edit:

Again, I am not trying to be ignorant or rude. This is just my perspective. I've been wrong before, I could be wrong now. But nothing (again, in my opinion) has shown me otherwise. Maybe it's because I don't really care about the social issues so I just tune them out. Maybe?