Where did Republicans go wrong?

[RogerFGay]

I'd like to encourage everyone to examine the circumstances in which Ronald Reagan became a Republican icon, and how it happened. If examined outside the scope of partisan competition, was it all good?

While you're at it, the impact of Newt Gingrich also deserves careful attention. After many years as the minority party in Congress (part of the Reagan story as well) what were some of the details behind gaining in popularity and successfully becoming a Congressional majority?

Conservatives would like to believe that it was all straightforward -- fair and square. The country moved toward conservative ideals. But since that time, anti-conservative rhetoric still seems to carry some great weight. The Republican Congress talks the talk, but walks in the opposite direction on domestic policy. (OK taxes, that proves it right? -- not!)

When we look at the great partisan accomplishments of these men, we should also look at how they did what they did, and ask if there were some compromises that we shouldn't have to live with in the long run.

Partisanship should not be more important than citizenship.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem." Ronald Reagan

We disregard the principles of Reagan. When we forget this principle, we go wrong.

[RogerFGay]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by patriotgirl:
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem." Ronald Reagan

We disregard the principles of Reagan. When we forget this principle, we go wrong.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know what "present crisis" he was referring to in that quote, but Reagan certainly didn't consistently abide by that principle.

The danger I see here is getting too caught up in Reagan's rhetoric. The Reagan worship is like taking the idea of government back a few thousand years to the days when political leaders were thought of as gods. Pretty soon you're taking it on faith that everything that Reagan did was good and refusing to look at things objectively.

[RogerFGay]

In real life, judging by what they do, Republicans are Democrats with different excuses and a different circle of wealthy friends. It takes someone who is young and naive, relatively intellectually challenged, or too lazy to look at details not to notice.

No matter which party holds power, the agenda as seen in terms of general political philosophy does not differ. Both parties want big spending big government, unlimited federal powers, and the elimination of human rights. These are things that are synonymous with more personal power and they all want that.

In politics, someone who is really out to reduce the amount of power they have in order that citizens have more freedom should be thought of as a saint. We just haven't seen any of those in a very, very long time.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

This is the Constitution Party of Kentucky has declared that they will no longer be named conservative, but constitutionalist. You cannot be a constitutionalist unless you know what is in the document itself. Time and time again I have seen conservatives be defeated at any election turn.

I want to go on the offensive and restore the republic and it does not matter what party it is. Constitutionalist need to unite in elections and work together by looking beyond the traditional party labels.

Go to: http://www.constitutionparty.com/
web page (http://mrclint.freeyellow.com/cpky.html)

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Bingo! images/icons/cool.gif

[RogerFGay]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by cpky:
This is the Constitution Party of Kentucky has declared that they will no longer be named conservative, but constitutionalist. You cannot be a constitutionalist unless you know what is in the document itself. Time and time again I have seen conservatives be defeated at any election turn.

I want to go on the offensive and restore the republic and it does not matter what party it is. Constitutionalist need to unite in elections and work together by looking beyond the traditional party labels.

Go to: http://www.constitutionparty.com/
web page (http://mrclint.freeyellow.com/cpky.html)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I understand the sentiment. I was encouraged to have a sign-off back when the Townhall forum existed, so I called myself a "traditionalist." The term "conservative" had too much baggage. We've had a number of discussions at this site already on what "conservative" means.

I haven't looked at the Constitution Party in a long time. I guess you could face a paradox. The Constitutional political system in non-partisan. What's the official Constitutional Party's response to that?

[RogerFGay]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ken:
Bingo! images/icons/cool.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


There are a lot of people playing the system to build their own personal / family empires. People in office include the rich and famous, their families and friends. People with influence often turn out to be family and old school chums. Some of these people marry like in the olden days -- "to form an alliance between two houses."

They have no interest in preservation of the system of government established under the Constitution. They'll lie, cheat, steal, whatever it takes to increase the gains in their alliance. They're strip mining the strong fabric of the country. They'll destroy families by the millions, send soldiers to war, eliminate freedom -- anything to further their own personal gain.

What's worse is that we the people let them get away with it. We behave as if we have some loyalty ourselves to the two party system. We occassional gripe about family ties if they show up in relation to the other party but won't be rude enough to declare the practice altogether wrong. Most of us voted for the son of a former president, only complaining that the wife of a sitting president captured a Senate seat.

What is this barrier that we cannot cross?

[pja]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RogerFGay:

There are a lot of people playing the system to build their own personal / family empires. People in office include the rich and famous, their families and friends. People with influence often turn out to be family and old school chums. Some of these people marry like in the olden days -- "to form an alliance between two houses."

They have no interest in preservation of the system of government established under the Constitution. They'll lie, cheat, steal, whatever it takes to increase the gains in their alliance. They're strip mining the strong fabric of the country. They'll destroy families by the millions, send soldiers to war, eliminate freedom -- anything to further their own personal gain.

What's worse is that we the people let them get away with it. We behave as if we have some loyalty ourselves to the two party system. We occassional gripe about family ties if they show up in relation to the other party but won't be rude enough to declare the practice altogether wrong. Most of us voted for the son of a former president, only complaining that the wife of a sitting president captured a Senate seat.

What is this barrier that we cannot cross?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ha!! I have often pondered the idea of an amendment to the constitution preventing any family from having more than one person in elected political office. So, children and grandchildren of an elected political official would need to find some other line of work. Brothers and sisters, husbands and wives of elected political officials would have to find some other line of work. I really like the idea myself.

Pat (aka pja)

[RogerFGay]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pja:
Ha!! I have often pondered the idea of an amendment to the constitution preventing any family from having more than one person in elected political office. So, children and grandchildren of an elected political official would need to find some other line of work. Brothers and sisters, husbands and wives of elected political officials would have to find some other line of work. I really like the idea myself.

Pat (aka pja)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Pat,

There are people around treating Ronald Reagan like a diety. Don't you think that's unAmerican? It's some kind of Iranian Iatola stuff. They don't feel it's acceptable to question and policies that went into effect during the Reagan years. We're stuck with them, kind of like because God said so.

I really think there's something terribly wrong with that. That attitude has nothing to do with American democracy or American culture.

[pja]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RogerFGay:

Pat,

There are people around treating Ronald Reagan like a diety. Don't you think that's unAmerican? It's some kind of Iranian Iatola stuff. They don't feel it's acceptable to question and policies that went into effect during the Reagan years. We're stuck with them, kind of like because God said so.

I really think there's something terribly wrong with that. That attitude has nothing to do with American democracy or American culture.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Roger, I do agree on the hero worship stuff. It is the same as the blind worship of JFK. I have a personal grudge against womanizers and JFK and clan are all womanizers. But to so many Americans(and others)JFK is a god. The Kennedys are a "royal family".

People focus on the personality and are blinded to the whole of the character or the actions of the person. That is why I keep saying that I am not interested in charisma, pretty hair or cute bunns. I am interested in what people do. However, this blind worship of various icons seriously hinders discussion of policies and effects. I don't know how to get around it.

Roger, iconology can be a dangerous activity if you don't come up with a perfectly glowing thesis.

Pat (aka pja)

[RogerFGay]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pja:
Roger, iconology can be a dangerous activity if you don't come up with a perfectly glowing thesis.

Pat (aka pja)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They need to find something to believe in other than politicians and actors.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Reagen was the worst president the US has ever had. He was a racist, he destroyed our economy, he was a crook look at Iran Contra. Need I go on. Worst president america has ever seen

[EagleTed]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by david630:
Reagen was the worst president the US has ever had. He was a racist, he destroyed our economy, he was a crook look at Iran Contra. Need I go on. Worst president america has ever seen<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Worst president? Let's see, eight years of peace and prosperity, that qualifies him as the worst. Far worst than say, Jimmy Carter, who presided over 14 percent inflation, double diget unemployment, and the USSR's expansion into Afganistan, Cuba's expansion into Africa, the Communist taking over Nicaragua, and who gave away the Panama Canal. Or, FDR, who violated the Constitution by creating welfare, etal. Or, U.S. Grant who, next to Harding, had the most corrupt administration in history.

But you speak of Iran-Contra. Please expand. I wish to learn how Reagan, or any of his administration, personally profited from it.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Roger - would you like to know "realy" what happened?

This is the reality!

After 8 years of Reagan Presidency - President Bush was "fairly" good, but he made one "BIG" mistake. He agreed op on (Liberals were barking about all the time) increas taxes. And that was the end of Republican Leadership.

President Clinton successfully united all crooks. (Corporate welfare, union, lawyers, Mafia, drug dealers, etc.) While the news media, Liberals in general kept barking - Read my lips!

President Clinton (friend of Jews) did the best job for the Jews. Destroyed the American economy, stock market and he already been told as - terrorists are coming.

So it came(?)

Which give one un-answered question. America gave millions to taliban government - so called, humanitarian aide.

There is something fishy - don't you think so?

[**DONOTDELETE**]

THE REPUBLICANS COMITTED ONE MAJOR MISTAKE AFTER REAGAN LEFT THE SCENE - THEY TOWED TO MODERATE OF A LINE, ESPECIALLY ECONOMICALLY AND BECAME MORE INTERVENTIONIST THAN MOST CONSERVATIVES WOULD LIKE. WHY DO WE HAVE TO TAKE CARE OF EVERYBODY ELSE'S PROBLEMS ??