The American Spectator

Motown Mike| 12.8.09 @ 6:40AM

Brilliant article! And true!

ggoblue| 12.8.09 @ 6:48AM

good morning america....what can one say about mr reagan? the man was branded a dummy, yet his beliefs and principals are proving to be timeless....like the founders of the country he had a certain genius about him. no other way to explain it. god bless ronald reagan, he saved the world from godless communism. now it is our turn.

Helen Donnelly| 12.8.09 @ 4:08PM

ggoblue:
Very well said. We cannot let the founder fathers and great leaders who have gone before us down. It is indeed our turn...

Mr. Chalkdust| 12.8.09 @ 7:37AM

Personally, I'm so sick and tired of the posers (Dole, McCain and father/son Bush) in the Republican Party, I will bolt to a third party if the dolts in control of the Republican Party nominate and back another poser as they did in NY23.

Richard Baker| 12.8.09 @ 7:44AM

The Republicans lost in 2006 and 2008 because they had bent so far over backward to NOT be seen as conservative that there was relatively no difference between the the two parties to the electorate. The two Bushes, decent Americans that they are, forgot who the political enemy was. The Democrats are not just an opposition party but rather a mob enamored of death, anti-American principles, and conversion to a tyrannical government. An abomination to the concept of being an American. In short, Fantasyland for destruction.

martin j smith| 12.8.09 @ 7:58AM

Voters will vote based first on their pocket books and their overall sense of security or lack of same . The WH Bush presidency might have been more positive even in the time of economic crisis. Sadly,Bush was too passive in his dealing with the radical left Democrat Party and allowed himself to be run over by them and the MSM. MacCaine's candidacy in a sense imitated Bush. I think his campaign was failure because he lacked the wil to win. I would say that of Bush as well. Inn fact many of those who are designated as RINOS seem to have that same characteristic.
It is interesting that the candidate who is more conservative is more optimistic ( not in the sense of hope and change ) and has more of a reflection of what people are thinking. The only exceptions are those that want something for nothing. People want to work,earn a good living and have good lifestye that reflects them--not one imposed on them from outside. The candidate who inspires,is principled and is shows competence will be the winner. Not the bend over backwards cowards.

Becky| 12.8.09 @ 8:04AM

I don't know if we are too late to fix the large messes the current government is sure to create, but do know that most people I know, whether self declared conservative or liberal, mainly want to be left alone to mind their own business.

It is such a hard sell, but shouldn't be if you are confident in yourself and believe that people have the ability to solve their own problems and make their own choices.

The current health care debate should be a glaring example of Regan's insistence that conservatism is the most inclusive tent there is. The health care bill, at over 2,000 pages, still does not make the 100 people involved happy, so how will that work on the 300 million scale?

When government is small, more people are included in liberty and freedom. The abortion debate in Congress proves that. If it was a state issue, it would not be a news item today, and they could focus on keeping our national collective defense strong.

I hope we survive the next few years as America at heart, not just in name.

Mr. Chalkdust| 12.8.09 @ 8:15AM

Let's be honest. The principle reason the the Republican Party was drubbed in 2006 was because the sitting president, a Republican, who's only try at using his power of office was to muscle aside the opposition and try to thwart the will of the people by giving law-breakers automatic citizenship and loads of perks not available to citizens.
The loss in 2008 is more a perfect storm than anything else:
* Wall Street crashing and burning.
*$4/gal. gasoline.
* A failed sitting Republican President.
* A very bad Republican candidate.
* An opposing candidate who was unafraid of breaking the law.

Melvin| 12.8.09 @ 8:18AM

Being a retired Marine, grandfather of four boys, my wife and I shed tears upon seeing President Reagan's funeral cortège.
I usually having nothing but disdain for politicians and wish upon them the burning sands of political purgatory, but not President Reagan.
We had heard that he passed on but it never really hit home until we saw him lying in state, and then I realized that the man who made this Country believe in itself was finally gone.
Even now as I post this message emotions well up again just thinking about how truly great this singular man was.
Ronald Reagan was more than flesh and blood. He embodied an idea and he lived it. Ronnie was one of us. He severely disliked the Blue Blood Country Club Republicans and he wasn't afraid to tell them where they could stick their elitist noses.
John McCain was the failed representative of the Republican Blue Bloods revenge for the hell that Ronald Reagan imposed upon them.
I could go on an on but those who post here, were there. We breathed Ronald Reagan, we lived Ronald Reagan, and we believed Ronald Reagan.
It was one of those, "Ya had to have been there moments."
This, "Idea" that Ronald Regan stood for is exactly what the Republican Blue Bloods and Democrats want to erase from memory and history because they realize that if this, "American Idea" was to be unleashed again there would be no stopping it and or this Country.
My fellow Conservatives let us not forget or diminish the "American Idea" we should carry on and foster the message inside the quote from President Reagan.

"America's best days are yet to come. Our proudest moments are yet to be. Our most glorious achievements are just ahead."

Big J| 12.8.09 @ 8:54AM

Ditto, Melvin.

I get teary-eyed every time I watch or read a speech by Ronald Reagan.

Every new day into this administration makes me long even more for such a leader.

JP| 12.8.09 @ 8:26AM

Funny thing about President Eisenhower. He could have run as a Democrat. In 1952, Truman was about as unpopular as President Bush43 was in 2007. However, the Brain Trust had little regard for Eisenhower whom they believed was intellectually inferior. Instead they went with the former professor, Adlai Stevenson.

Eisenhower showed all the tendencies of a RINO. He was at home with most if not all of the New Deal legislation, and found common ground with the Democratic Congress. Most of all, he began a 50 year tradition of Republican Presidents who appointed Progressives to the High Court. Besides Justice Brennan (he admitted later in life that Brennan was his single biggest mistake), Eisenhower appointed an old California GOP operative, and former govenor Earl Warren.

If one wishes to be truthful, the years 1981-1985 was the only period in which conservatives came close to at least slowing the liberal trends in this nation. Beginning with Ike and continuing through 2007, the GOP has been a party of Liberalism Lite. At best, the GOP slowed the liberal political and cultural trends in this nation. At worst, the GOP was a full partner with the Progressives.

John II| 12.8.09 @ 5:52PM

True, true, somewhat true, not quite entirely true, and . . . wait a minute! Ike was not an ideological conservative, but he was indeed a gut-conservative, and a Stevenson presidency during the 1950s would have been a comparative disaster.

Ike himself was fiscally more conservative even than Taft, and he despised the idea of a welfare state, which he considered morally debilitating. In foreign affairs he forged new alliances and steered a very complex and difficult course between isolationism and busybody adventurism. Like Reagan almost a generation later, he understood very clearly that a sound economy had to be the first priority for national health and defense. His coining of the term "military-industrial complex," a term hijacked by the Left in succeeding decades for their own shabby purposes, was the consequence of dealing with and skillfully keeping at bay a loose coalition of armchair-warrior senators, ambitious military brass, and eager arms-manufacturers--and his chief concern was the inflationary effect of government overspending.

In the early years of American advisory involvement in Vietnam, he proceeded with care, anticipating southeast Asia as likely to become a quagmire if America didn't measure her interests and capabilities with great restraint. (Restraint, by the way, is a characteristically conservative virtue.) The subsequent flashy guns-and-butter policies of the Kennedy and Johnson administrations were rightly seen by Ike as puerile.

He worked 19-hour days keeping on top of things, and keeping ahead of his most prominent underlings, including John Foster Dulles; among heftier achievements, he seems to have been the last president to be fully in charge of the CIA. He deliberately cultivated his image as a somewhat fumbling and agreeable lightweight (with such success that Taft, who should have known better, dismissed him as nothing more than a "golf-pro").

Yes, the Supreme Court appointments were disastrous--but yes again, he admitted as much with hindsight. The culture wars came in the wake of the Kennedy administration, and I'm disinclined to fault Ike too much for failing to be a prophet as well as a very serious man and effective president.

Steve| 12.8.09 @ 9:08AM

Contra (?) the inclusive spirit of St. Ronald, I say: let the purges begin!!!!!!!! Screw the Specters and Jeffords of the world. Let the gibbets be built.

ds80| 12.8.09 @ 11:38AM

As Charles Krauthammer just articulated: a revolution is brewing.

To the ramparts!

Ken (Old Texican)| 12.8.09 @ 9:25AM

Mr. Lord
Thank you for that reminder. Well done.
Ladies and gentlemen,
We shall not see another Ronald Reagan, but that's OK.
He showed us the way, and stuck to his guns. Rest In Peace in the Lord, Ron.

What we need now is a little different breed of cat. We need to pray for someone to step forward, prepared to clean up the internally inflicted trainwreck that America will be by 2012.

First, WE need to pave the way for that Leader, by giving him, (or her), the majority in congress that Mr. Reagan never enjoyed.
Second, we must start "girding our loins" for battle against the mushrooming bureaucracy we are experiencing in these days. Given a good leader, we gotta' commit to being good followers, and advocates for freedom and liberty...and self determination.
Having done so, we will literally have to turn back the clock...at least eight years. We will need a leader that can make it an exciting adventure to go back and find our wrong turn off the "freeway of freedom" and get our country back in the passing lane of that freeway.
Make no mistake, folks, getting back there is going to be painful...for all of us....
But!
This detour we are now on has a number destinations, every one of which is a total disaster, for our country, and for the world...and for each one of us individually.
Honestly,
as I search diligently for that leader across the landscape of the Republican Party, I am looking for that certain "spark" that can genuinely bring sensible Americans together and lead us on the treck "cross country" back to that freeway.

Thus far I have seen only one person with that spark that has the potential to become a "pillar of fire".
Senators can't be it. They are too...may I say gently...submerged in "collegiality". In a less kind way, I would have to say experienced Senators and Reps. suffer from becoming too "homogenized".

Like Mr. Reagan did, I believe our best potential leader will "sweep in from the wings".

That leader will be wearing cross country gear.

Finally, folks, all the little differences and quibbles we hash out in these days...are irrelevant. We must try to picture the disaster we shall be in the midst of three years from now to begin defining our leader for those days.
Thank you for reading.
Ken

Al Adab| 12.8.09 @ 10:28AM

Good analysis Ken. Leadership will appear if we make room for it. When we focus too much on WHO we should follow we miss the point. WHAT we follow, our principles, is more important. Those who stand for principle will emerge and we will hear that clarion voice.

The case for Constitutional government, free markets, economic growth (not govt funds) rational taxes, national defense - well on it goes but you get the idea- is where we will discover our future. Many in office all over the country adhere to these values and they will rise to the occasion as we need them so badly now. Look to local officials and state legislatures. They are there.

bluecollarbytes| 12.8.09 @ 9:59AM

Listen to Dick Morris and Karl Rove types and one might think all that's required is to target various special self-interests, guided by endless polls, and micro-moves in public opinion. I don't recall being able to identify an overall Republican conservative philosophy for years now, except in the 'backwoods' of places like the American Spectator, conservative non-profits or the "divisive" Rush Limbaugh.

But there is reason to hope as Reagan did.---> "The former California Governor said that Republicans could be saved from extinction only by acting quickly to assert the party's ideological identity.

Thomas| 12.8.09 @ 11:02AM

People are always looking for a "leader". But, unlike the monarchies of Europe, the American people don't do leaders. Contrary to popular opinion, Ronald Reagan was not a leader. He was the embodiment of the will of the majority of the people of the United States of America.

He was initially elected by just shy of 51% of the people and was re-elected by just shy of 59%. He had no mandate, nor did he ever garner much more support during his Presidency, his approval numbers hovering around 57%. So how did he accomplish the feat of becoming generally accepted as one of the greatest Presidents of all time? Simply because he remained true to the principles that he espoused when he campaigned. He didn't say one thing and do another. He was honest with his constituency, and for that reason alone, he never lost them. Love him or hate, you knew who and what he was.

Ronald Reagan did nothing that was radical or new. His policies were simply a reflection of what most of the people wanted; smaller government, a smoothly running economy, increased international security, less government involvement in their lives and the ability to keep more of their own money and spend it as they chose. Ronald Reagan said that was what he was going to do and that is exactly what he did. And the majority of Americans appreciated that, as evidenced by his approval rating of 64% when he left office.

Now, Reagan had several advantages. He was a relative neophyte in politics, an advantage shared by Barack Obama. There were no instances of contrary actions in his background, unkike many of the front running Republican politicians of today. Added to that, his positions directly reflected the desires of a majority of the people. And, he had a Democratic Congress that had not been out of power for almost forty years. They were willing to take the long view and accept policy positions that were popular with their constituents, even though those positions were contrary to their own desires. Such is no longer the case. The Democrat Party was devastated by their loss of Congress in 1994. Now, they are intent on ramming through as much of their personal liberal agenda as possible before they lose the opportunity again.

The next "leader" to appear as a Presidential contender will be someone like Ronald Reagan. Someone who is one of the people. Someone who reflects the values and desires of the majority. Someone whose positions on the issues have remained constant. Someone who does not represent themselves to be something that they are not. And, someone who can communicate who and what they are to the populous.

When people see such a person, they will know him or her.

Eric Damon| 12.8.09 @ 11:47AM

I think that in order to make a point you are attemping to sell Reagan short, so let me offer you a little clarity here.

When you assert that Reagan "had no mandate" because he only won his first race with 51% of the vote, and his second win came with "only" 59% you intientionally dismiss the true relevance of those numbers. In his first victory in 1980, while he got "only" 51% of the vote, he still beat his primary competetion, Jimmy Carter, by a full 10% of the vote, with the other 7% or so going to a third party candidate. Again, Reagan knocked off a sitting President by a full 10% of the vote...and you make the claim he had no mandate? He beat carried 44 states, and beat Carter by a total of 489-49 in the Electoral College! And his whipping of Mondale in 1984 was worse: not only did he get 59% of the popular vote...and who has gotten close since?...he carried 49 sates, and had 525 votes in the Electoral College. That, my friend, gives you a mandate! Presidential popularity polls are skewed snapshots for the most part, but the real picture is taken at the polls, and Reagan triumphed handily there both times he stood for a presidential election

And Reagan was no "political neophyte" as Obama is, and there is no concievable way that being a political neophyte is an advantage as POTUS. Unlike Obama, Reagan had served two successful terms as the governor of California, one of the most populous and prosperous states in the country at that time. And he had mounted a campaign that came within a hair's breadth of unseating a sitting POTUS in a primary battle...and that is a very rare occurence indeed.

As for whether Reagan did anythiing radical, it may not seem radical to us who are conservatives, but in the context of a GOP that had spent all its days since the days of Roosevelt basically transforming into Democrat-Lite, what he did was radical. He refused to play the "me too" game and demanded that the Party articluate a clear conservative agenda as a way to regaining popularity with the voters...and that was a radical departure from the "go along to get along" mentality prevalent in the Party then. Reagan was the "fire breathing right-winger" that he RINOs so despised then, and despise now.

But I do agree that the people do so long to see a person that is like Reagan, a person who is "real"; a person that gets what concerns them; a person that can speak to their desires and dreams, and we will know that person when we see them. But until then, we had better start identifying and supporting those who come closest to that ideal and who share our political philosophy.

Hunter Van Valkenburgh| 12.9.09 @ 9:50AM

Smaller government? The federal government grew by a third in number of employees during Reagan's terms. Fiscal responsibility? The nation debt had never exceeded a trillion dollars, even during WWII, but under Reagan it passed $4 Trillion, the greated proportion of GDP ever. Efficient economy? There were two recessions during Reagan's terms and the stock market almost collapsed in 1987 and would have but for massive government intervention. "Homeless" entered our lexicon due to the huge number of people driven out of their homes by our import-driven, jobs-destroying policies.
What Reagan was really good at was preaching a homey philosophy while manipulating policy to the benefit of the top 5% of earners. The GOP has carried on that tradition well. If I believed in hell I would wish that Ronny were roasting there now.

John Navratil| 12.10.09 @ 9:01AM

Mr. Van Valkenburgh,

True, the budget grew. Why? Perhaps the "1974 Congressional Budget Reform and Impoundment Control Act" which sharply restricted the practice and raised year over year deficits from less than one percent to a persistent three percent at the time. You can find the year over year decrease in the debt stopped at that time and began its precipitous rise.

Do you remember Reagan submitting a balanced budget each year only to have Tip O'Neill pronounce it D.O.A?

Perhaps you recall the budget showdown between Newt and Clinton when Clinton preferred to shut down the government rather than suffer a budget cut.

If Reagan is in Hell, he'll need a sweater.

Ken (Old Texican)| 12.8.09 @ 11:34AM

Allright, Thomas!
Heh!
You are precisely correct.

However, I just can't quite get my lips around the term "embodier"
Heck, down here in Texas, most folks would go to an "embodier" when a kinfolk dies.

JimBob| 12.8.09 @ 11:36AM

Republicans lost in 2006-08 because of Iraq. The cautious realism that has always been Republican foreign policy gave way to the bellicose NeoCons. It has been a disaster.

After the marines were killed in Lebanon in 2003 Reagan withdrew our troops. Here is how he explained it in his autobiography.

" Perhaps we didn’t appreciate fully enough the depth of the hatred and the complexity of the problems that made the Middle East such a jungle. Perhaps the idea of a suicide car bomber committing mass murder to gain instant entry to Paradise was so foreign to our own values and consciousness that it did not create in us the concern for the marines’ safety that it should have.

In the weeks immediately after the bombing, I believe the last thing that we should do was turn tail and leave. Yet the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there. If there would be some rethinking of policy before our men die, we would be a lot better off. If that policy had changed towards more of a neutral position and neutrality, those 241 marines would be alive today."

The idea that a conservative Republican President would be engaged in Nation Building in the Muslim world is absurd. While Democrats want to spend trillions on social programs, the current GOP wants to spend trillions on overseas military adventurism. Big government is still big government whether at home or abroad.

Ronald Reagan on the Middle East-- Neutrality

Eric Damon| 12.8.09 @ 11:56AM

Dude, Ronald Reagan was far from neutral in the Middle East! Do you not remember his siding with Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War? Or his intervention in Lebanon (the Beirut Marine barracks bombing not ringing any bells?)? Or his decision to bomb the hell out of Tripoli in an effort to kill Quadafi? Or his unwavering support to Israel? That's not neutrality in any way, shape, form, or fashion. Reagan adopted the policies that he thought served the best interests of the United States, and that is something that I don't believe the current administration is doing; they seem to be making decisions in the best interests of their administration.

Ken (Old Texican)| 12.8.09 @ 11:58AM

JimBobJumpback,
You are full of...hooey!
What the man wrote was: " If that policy had changed towards more of a neutral position and neutrality, those 241 marines would be alive today."
Write that on your hand..."more of a nuetral position."
Question, what would Reagan's position have been if the Soviet Union killed 3,000 innocent Americans on American soil? Hmmmmm?

Mr. Reagan was graciously accepting blame for the Marines commander's failure to be paranoid enough...in that jungle.

All the wrong conclusions were drawn there. Those Marines would not have died in vain if it had prevented 9-11.
I really hate it when armchair quarterbacks mumble "neocon" neocon" 25 years later.
Folks,
Get it straight!
People who use the term "neocon" as a perjorative, are at worst, Israel haters, and at best, cowardly "fortress America" idiots like Toddard.
Write that on your hands as well.
Personally, I appreciate pax Americana. We have lived in freedom and prosperity in pax-Americana for 60 years.
I thank God for every vet. that has served freedom around the world, whether the politicians screwed it up or not.
JimBob...you will not like pax-anyone else. Stupid!

JimBob| 12.8.09 @ 4:31PM

"People who use the term "neocon" as a perjorative, are at worst, Israel haters, and at best, cowardly "fortress America" idiots like Toddard."

They're anti Israel. Really??

Lets just look at that!

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb.....0&y=15

JimBob| 12.8.09 @ 12:07PM

Reagan didn't have marines stationed on Soviet soil so your question is not relevant. Reagan put Marines in Lebanon during a Civil War in which our national security wasn't being threatened. As he wrote if the United States had been neutral the marines would be alive. Reagan understood the complexities of the region. The United States should be honest brokers for peace. Neutrality.

Ken (Old Texican)| 12.8.09 @ 12:23PM

Jimbob,
Now you have gone over the line from stupid to purposeful lying....
OKOK, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and simply point out that the only other possible reality is that you are incredibly ignorant.

We had thousands of TDY Marines, SEALS, and Army special forces guys "stationed on Soviet soil" during Reagan's watch.
PS: we have tried to be an "honest broker for peace", for sixty years in the mid-east...to no avail.

In your own quote, Mr. Reagan called mid east politics/ suicide bombings "irrational".

One cannot be an honest broker with folks who are totally irrational...Get over it.

JimBob| 12.8.09 @ 12:30PM

Where did we have troops on Soviet Soil?? We were acting as occupiers in Lebanon. No we haven't acted as honest brokers for peace. Honest brokers for peace would have a position of neutrality. No matter what Bush and the Neocons say they don't hate us for our freedoms.

JimBob| 12.8.09 @ 12:34PM

We should remember Ronald Reagan’s admonition regarding this area of the world. Ronald Reagan reflected on Lebanon in his memoirs, describing the Middle East as a jungle and Middle East politics as irrational. It forced him to rethink his policy in the region. It’s time we do some rethinking as well.

http://www.house.gov/paul/cong.....102605.htm

jasmine1987| 12.8.09 @ 12:41PM

Nice for your sharing! Air Max shoes are still to be the best choice for you when hunting for first-class sneakers.

Ken (Old Texican)| 12.8.09 @ 12:42PM

OK, folks, now the wraps come off. Jimbob is just another Ron Paul goofball fringe member.
...and incredibly ignorant. He doesn't even understand what TDY stands for, or why it exists.
Would some vet here enlighten him?

JimBob5| 12.8.09 @ 12:51PM

How Reagan Beat the Neocons

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06.....ocons.html

JimBob| 12.8.09 @ 12:52PM

Ken, you're a buffoon.

ds80| 12.8.09 @ 1:15PM

Like, totally kewl, JimBob. Breaking out the "buffoon" riposte. *That* is so def 5th grade.
Can't wait to hear your "neener-neener"

JimBob| 12.8.09 @ 1:25PM

Well since Ken has offered to fight me on another thread a couple weeks back, I think buffoon is an appropriate response.

Now if you don't have anything else to add I suggest you leave

albert constantine, jr| 12.8.09 @ 1:16PM

TDY is an Army/Air Force term for temporary duty. Navy/Marine Corps term is TAD for Temporary Additional Duty. The words are generally not very compatible with the verb "stationed', since our military members are stationed somewhere when they receive PCS (Permanent Change of Station) orders, and TDY or TAD are, as the first letter in the acronym states, temporary (At least this is how it was when I was one of Ronaldus Magnus' Marines, near Soviet soil or any where else).

Ken (Old Texican)| 12.8.09 @ 5:57PM

Albert,
Thank you.
TDY is also a "convenient term" for detailing really special people into "behind the lines" organizations.

I was president of the company that mobilized the trans-Siberian pipeline with automatic welding equipment. I went "undercover" and took the automatic welding course...heh...and failed the "psychological test" to be deployed.

I of course went back to my home and prepared to deploy my men, and loaded up my warmest gear to go be a cheerleader for them.

...I met a number of TDYed guys while in the Soviet Union. Man! I could never do those jobs...whew!

In my mind, every single one of them should have at least a Navy Cross, or the other services' equivalent.
God bless every one of you men!

dcd| 12.8.09 @ 2:57PM

Who and how is the philosophy of the party to be decided? Voting and primaries is traditional but many on this board were dissatisfied with the 2008 results, and the 2000 results and the the '82 results.
How about a pure market solution, the biggest donor sets policy for the next 4 years?

Joe| 12.8.09 @ 6:07PM

Your article is much better than your co-worker Jim. You are right and Congressman, Thaddeus McCotter is wrong. Your points were well made and do not need further explanation from me.

Ken (Old Texican)| 12.8.09 @ 6:15PM

Hi dcd.
That's sorta' funny. In reality though, "votes" are the defining "currency" of policy. If I got the votes, the money just follows right along.

Some Republicans forgot that.
Actually, I was quite pleased with both the 80 results, and the 2000 results. (82 was an off year).

2004 was OK as well in my mind, except a man I think the world of, (George W.), sorta' got off track by being a little too loyal to his helpers/advisors.

In addition, our GOP congress critters got too big for their britches and the communist loving MSMedia painted with an awfully wide brush.

Well...we have learned some lessons.
One...screw the MSMedia. Freeze 'em out just like the communists now freeze out Fox and Rush.

...since the people want "sound-bite" politics...give them sound bites we like...except true ones.

My main thought though is to return to votes only valid from people who pay taxes.

JimBob| 12.8.09 @ 6:33PM

I'm with Ed Crane founder of the Cato Institute that the GOP should dump the NeoCons

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10935

Or as George Will called them ": "The most magnificently misnamed neoconservatives are the most radical people in this town."

http://www.thewashingtonnote.c.....001539.php

After eight years of Bush with NeoCons calling the shots the GOP is shattered. The only thing holding the party up is Obama.

PCP Smoker| 12.8.09 @ 6:43PM

That was beautiful. Preach it brother!

Ken (Old Texican)| 12.8.09 @ 7:06PM

WoW!
Great company, Jimbob. You should be prou-ulp proud. Heh.

JimBob| 12.8.09 @ 7:19PM

Any knuckle dragging NeoCon can post nonsense.

Ken (Old Texican)| 12.8.09 @ 7:24PM

JImbob,
That is exactly correct, and you do not have the courage to stop us....Coward!

JimBob| 12.8.09 @ 7:57PM

You're a few bricks short of a full load.

Ken (Old Texican)| 12.9.09 @ 12:41PM

Jimbob,
You may be right.
So....................how many jobs have you created?
I have hired tens of thousands and built stuff.
What have you done?

MikeBee| 12.8.09 @ 9:45PM

Excellent article! Ron Reagan was able to see the big picture. In America today, we are actually much more conservative than liberal. This is largely due to demographics. The generation with the largest amount of people is the Boomer generation, and they range in age from 55 to 70ish. Older folks usually are more conservative, having lived most of life, and having learned from their mistakes. They know what works. Secondly, most folks don't realize that most Blacks are conservative, also. As Keith Butler, a conservative black minister/politician in the Detroit area, says in his book "Reviving the American Spirit," most blacks are more conservative than Republican conservatives today. Then, most folks in the Southern states are conservative. It's really only a few Americans who are truly far left liberal, less than 20% of America. The rest of America is mostly conservative, or not yet decided.

We need to walk forward with confidence, knowing that most of America is conservative also. When political moderates see the majority of America moving in one direction, following a truly conservative leader, they will fall in line. Moderates always follow the crowd, afraid to form an opinion of their own.

Christopher Holland| 12.8.09 @ 10:09PM

I find it hard, no, impossible to understand why anybody thinks they have to be a liberal to get elected, when liberalism is falling apart in front of our eyes. Liberalism is a horrible disaster, in 2012 the Obama presidency is going to be a smoking crater. The guy is going to go down as the biggest, most incompetent loser ever to get elected. Why on earth does anybody want to be part of this nightmare? There is no reason at all why conservatives should compromise on anything at all. All they have to do is stick to their principles and be ready to pick up the pieces when the other guy is finished with blowing himself up.

ken (Old Texican)| 12.9.09 @ 12:43PM

Christopher,
Thank you. Very nice bow to wrap up the conversation.

Buck| 12.20.09 @ 4:42PM

You need to read what John Dean had to say about his conversations with Barry Goldwater before the Senator died. Goldwater was quite emphatic that conservatism had gone astray. Too bad too many of those who call themselves "conservative" are the real problem with the party.

www.us-bapeoutlet.com| 4.2.10 @ 4:53AM

www.us-bapeoutlet.com

wow| 10.17.11 @ 11:42AM

Thanks for sharing your nice blog...its the way i what i am thinking right now.
actos lawsuit

karen| 4.2.10 @ 6:00AM

Not only are www.herveleger-outlet.comsuitable attire for most occasions they are also a very comfortable form of for men. The fabric they are usually made from is flexible and comfortable with plenty of ‘give’ in the cheapwww.us-chaneloutlet.com if you need to stretch, zcount jordan shoes they have a collar to protect your from the sun if you are likely to be spending time outdoors and they have buttons at the if the weather should turn a bit chilly.

adfads| 4.7.10 @ 5:44AM

iTunes Converter is a professional and multifunctional software which can convert iTunes support formats, such as MP3, AIFF, WAV, MPEG-4, AAC, Apple Lossless, etc. to any other format and vice versa.
AVI to MP4 Converter is a professional and multifunctional software which can not only convert AVI to MP4, but also support converting between all other video formats, HD video formats included. In addition, AVI to MP4 Converter also functions as excellent AVI codec, audio converter, audio/picture extractor and video editor.

waqwe| 4.21.10 @ 11:45PM

Poptropica
ArenaBetting.com dukung fair play FIFA world cup AFSEL 2010

zxcvzxc| 5.5.10 @ 3:28AM

Flip Converter is a professional Flip Video Converter to help you convert Flip video, you can use it as Flip HD video converter and Flip MP4 converter. Supporting all Flip camcorder models, it can also function as Flip Ultra converter and Flip Mino converter.
asdas

yanyan| 10.10.11 @ 3:43PM

Awesome article, keeps up the work! Thanksmesothelioma attorneys

yaz class action| 10.22.11 @ 1:59PM

now this is the time for me to give comments. anybody who could give some educational support comments?

malibu real estate| 10.11.11 @ 1:42AM

You made some decent points there. I seemed on the web for the difficulty and found most individuals will go together with together with your website.

yanyan| 10.11.11 @ 12:57PM

cool and very amazing to everyone thank you man for sharing..mas200

yanyan| 10.11.11 @ 2:26PM

wonderful info is visible in this blog. This is very much enjoyed for providing the great technology in this blog.
zoloft lawsuit

balcuizar62| 10.12.11 @ 8:37PM

I don’t know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often. Thanks for sharing. Keep posting like this.
Yaz lawyer

Rinah| 10.17.11 @ 5:49AM

I was examining some of your articles on this internet site and I believe this internet site is real informative ! Retain putting up.

spot price of silver

ruth| 10.17.11 @ 9:34AM

this is good,this is really good thanks for posting :D

silver spot price

fiance visa| 10.17.11 @ 8:49PM

I’ve bookmarked your website when you’ll be returning to keep with any approaching updates. Simply love it and thanks for tolerating my comment.

fiance visa

L Tod Schlosser| 11.4.11 @ 12:21PM

Its very awesome article,all the content is so beneficial and valuable for us.presentation of article is very good,so I will bookmark it for sharing it with my friends.Thanks for sharing nice and pretty post.
L Tod Schlosser

creamer| 10.19.11 @ 8:17PM

Certainly with preceding poster, is apparently such as you will do properly out in this article round the world-wide-web.
actos lawsuit

love| 10.20.11 @ 5:33AM

ThanksI am very much happy that I've learnt something new and good information...
It is truly informative one...
Actos Cancer

accident attorney dallas| 10.20.11 @ 1:47PM

ey Shay thanks for posting this . I am currently studying ASP at college so every scrap of information helps! Appreciated.

accident attorney dallas

devourment| 11.4.11 @ 12:55PM

instead of waiting for this blog i will search for interesting topic thanks..keep it up my friend im here wait for the next post

L Tod Schlosser

PIERCE| 11.8.11 @ 2:45AM

And lastly, I’m also actually happy considering the splendid creative concepts served by you.
filipina girls

chester| 11.11.11 @ 1:19AM

It’s really helpful for me which I have ever seen.Its presented well and nicely written which easy to understand.Thank you very much for the information.

zoloft lawsuit

Perfect !!!| 11.14.11 @ 3:48AM

That is very interesting Smile I love reading and I am always searching for informative information like this!

mesothelioma lawyer