-
The IRS Immigration Fraud Scandal
June 18, 2013 | 102 comments
-
The IRS Ten: The New Keating Five
June 13, 2013 | 54 comments
-
Mark Levin: The Constitution’s Churchill
June 11, 2013 | 215 comments
-
George Clooney’s Perfect Storm
June 6, 2013 | 91 comments
-
IRS Commissioner Aided Tax Cheat Congressman
June 4, 2013 | 55 comments
Political Hay
The New Mossbacks
Rand Paul, Jeb Bush, and the Politics of Dads.
(Page 5 of 5)
These are good people. Wonderful people. In the case of Bush 41, a genuine hero straight out of the Greatest Generation.
But the ideas these people have brought with them to the leadership of the Republican Party has resulted in one way or the other in outright rejection (Ron Paul) or a political/electoral legacy that in sad fact has been tepid at best when not outright disastrous (the Bushes).
Has the GOP lost its way?
As long as the GOP’s potential presidents are quoting the “wisdom” of leftist ideologues (Rand Paul) or accepting awards named for Ronald Reagan yet rejecting Reagan’s principles of fraternal order Republicanism (Jeb Bush), the Republican Party will in fact be lost.
Lost in the wilderness that is the world of New Mossbacks and the Politics of the Dads.
About the Author
Jeffrey Lord is a former Reagan White House political director and author. He writes from Pennsylvania at jlpa1@aol.com.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (68) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Jeffrey Lord
More Articles From Political Hay
http://spectator.org/archives/2013/03/19/the-new-mossbacks2
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Pseudo-Macarius| 3.19.13 @ 6:20AM
Jeffrey: Rand Paul is more in line with Reagan than he is with all the neo-cons who sponsor wars all over the world, like Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran.
Rand is not "leftist", that is traditional Republican ideology of avoiding foreign wars.
Rand is off base on amnesty. It is not libertarian to let another 10 million Democrat voters in. Rubio is for amnesty. The only one against it is Ted Cruz.
Jeb Bush is a hopeless amnesty advocate. Please no more Bushes. Haven't they done enough damage to the party and the nation?
Von Mises Jr| 3.19.13 @ 10:15AM
Jeffrey, you do not know what you are talking about with regards to Rand Paul. You are making the same stale and mossy mistake as liberals that must fit everyone into a neat little box.
I have read Ron Paul and lots of other Austrian Economics and "libertarianism" is not "isolationism." They believe in free trade and as our Founders: not to entangle with other nation's quarrels. I never picked a fight in my life since I am of the same philosophy. But the few that screwed with me wound up on their backs.
You have Obama and the Progressives droning all around the world and the GOP that can't cut a DOD Budget that they cannot produce in detail due to the fraud and waste. In fact you say you are not a Neocon, but from your statements it is damn hard to convince me you are not.
Rand Paul is for liberty unlike the Bush regime that is for Agenda21 and big Statist government. You sound more like Rove than a small government advocate bashing libertarians and Senator Rand Paul.
True conservatives and libertarians demand the same: smaller and less intrusive government.
Jeff| 3.19.13 @ 10:34AM
Von Mises Jr....
I agree with Rand Paul on Austrian Economics.
You seem to confuse NeoCons with Reaganites. There is a distinct difference. Reaganites do not believe in roaming the world to establish democracy. Reaganites do believe in "Peace through Strength"...as Reagan himself endlessly discussed. Ron Paul - and apparently Rand - believe in "Peace through Trust." Reagan did not "entangle" America in other nations' quarrels. And for the record, one of the Paul heroes is John Quincy Adams - the author of the Monroe Doctrine. In which Adams and Monroe drew a line around the entire Western Hemisphere - thus "entangling" the US in every national quarrel from the tip of South America all the way north to Mexico. So in fact the Ron Paul record is not even close to what is pretended. And inevitably, Rand Paul's libertarian views spell the end of the pro-life movement if he were successful.
TLP| 3.19.13 @ 10:50AM
Neocons are Jews.
At least they are, when that word votes out of a Democrat's mouth.
Speaking of NeoCons/Jews...........What crawled up John Podhoritz's @ss, lately? As well as Judas Goldberg? (Did I say Judas? I meant Jonah)
Von Mises Jr| 3.19.13 @ 11:39AM
I accept the difference between Reagan "Peace through Strength" versus the Neocon faction and you may well be the former rather than the latter. At the same time, the Austrian Economics philosophy does not suggest lack of preparation or stomach to defend the country.
The Monroe Doctrine was in fact a defensive measure. You make my point in that John Quincy Adams warned Europe that intrusion and further colonization would not be tolerated. So if Paul holds him as a hero, it is evidence of my point.
My position of I will not hit you unless you push me first seems to be the Adams and Paul maxim. If you are correct, then JQ Adams and Paul agree and stand for their sovereignty and rights, not entanglements.
Jeff R| 3.19.13 @ 12:13PM
"My position of I will not hit you unless you push me first seems to be the Adams and Paul maxim."
Not so easy in today's world, Von. Biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons technology (ever being refined) can pose threats to the U.S. that may require preemption.
Two big oceans no longer separate the U.S. from its enemies.
How many Americans would need to die before the U.S. "pushed back?"
Jeff| 3.19.13 @ 3:37PM
Von Mises...
On the Adams-Monroe point. The Paul position is always presented as not getting entangled in the business of others. The moment Adams stuck the US nose outside of US borders - entanglement was necessary. Thus....if one holds the Paul point of view....JQA was one of the biggest interventionists in American history.
Jack in Wi| 3.19.13 @ 10:38AM
Very well stated von Mises.
Jeff R| 3.19.13 @ 12:21PM
"True conservatives and libertarians demand the same: smaller and less intrusive government."
Hmm... Jeffrey Lord isn't for this? Lord is for a robust national defense, second-to-none, I would imagine. This means the nation today needs more than minutemen.
Given the nature of war in the modern era, the U.S. can't afford to have a "small" national defense structure without compromising the nation's defense. Not suggesting that the nation needs a large, out-of-hand defense complex, but one capable of meeting - and in some instances, preempting - threats to the homeland.
William R| 3.19.13 @ 7:38PM
Lord supports a strong offense, not defense. In inflation adjusted dollars we are spending more on defense that Reagan during his military buildup. We were in the cold war. Now all we are doing is meddling in the Middle East against nations that aren't any threat to the United States.
When Eisenhower took office he cut 30 percent from Truman's last defense budget. This when the cold war could have gone hot, but Ike was a budget hawk and feared deficits more than the Soviets.
RJ| 3.20.13 @ 1:30AM
I wish all Americans would pay more attention to how President Eisenhower acted as Commander-in-Chief. He was the most skilled President we have had in a long time in the use of the military and he didn't deploy it very many times. Since Eisenhower's time, our Presidents have used the sword much more frequently, with usually ineffective results. Eisenhower knew what the military could accomplish and what it could not. Unfortunately, those Presidents who followed him too often resorted to the military option for problems which the military cannot solve (i.e. nation building).
Rand Paul doesn't strike me as the next George McGovern. I will continue to listen to him, but so far, I don't think he has the same foreign policy position as his father. He is outstanding on domestic policy and is a reasonable and hard working Senator.
Jeb Bush on the other hand offers another act of the nightmare which has taken us from the Reagan Revolution to where we are now. I have already heard enough from him to know that I will not vote for him in the primary election.
TLP| 3.19.13 @ 10:45AM
I'm not following you, Jeffery, on the whole supposed Leftward Tilt of Rand Paul, visavi Foreign Policy.
I agree with the Senator about bring Forces home. Why DO we need American Troops in South Korea? Just for Cannon Fodder? Why ARE our Men and Women still in Afghanistan, propping up that POS Karzai? Why DOESN'T Europe foot more of the bill for their own Defence?
"He mentioned Leftists."
What's your point? Do you actually READ the Comments that people write on this site? About 10% of the Commentors are Dyed in the Wool, out of their minds, True Believers that this Marxist Muslim who's never had a Job IN HIS LIFE, will get our Economy back, up and running. And, even if he doesn't, it's everybody else's Fault, anyway. And yet, like February 29? Every once in a while something that might even be True, finds its way into their Comment.
We have a Holocaust Denier, who's Neice (by marriage) used to be the Entertainment at her Black African Muslim King Boyfriend's Card Games, and who loves Jews as long as they're not Jewish, who every now and then says something right.
It's the same with these other Broken Clocks.
So, why all the Picking of Nits?
And, why do I think you're a Jebby Boy?
Jeff| 3.19.13 @ 3:40PM
TLP....
"And, why do I think you're a Jebby Boy?
Considering my criticisms of Jeb I have no idea. You're into fantasy?
TLP| 3.19.13 @ 4:21PM
I'm actually into Ancient Chinese Dynastic Treatment of Lesbian Men.
But, thanks for responding.
And, you might wanna rethink that Picture of yourself, at the bottom of the page.
Dai Alanye | 3.19.13 @ 6:53PM
Jeff Lord a "Jebby Boy?" No one who comprehends English could make that mistake could make that mistake unless deliberately.
Jack in Wi| 3.19.13 @ 6:48AM
After a couple of sane columns Jeff Lord is back to spouting long winded nonsense. Ron Paul has been right on most issues for at least 30 years. The Bushes and their pals like Romney have been almost always wrong. The Bush Rockefeller wing of the party hates it's base. The trouble for them is the is the pro-life base is 80% of the party. The Paul's foreign policy is not leftwing but the traditional American foreign policy of our founders like Washington, and Jefferson. The neoconservatives have their roots in leftwing Trotskyite Communism. The Bushes follow the leftwing foreign policy of Wilson, FDR, Truman, Johnson, Clinton and Obama. The Republican party needs to be rebuilt as the party of Life, Liberty and Peace or it needs to be replaced. The Obama, Clinton, Bush, Romney regime belongs in the ashheap of history.
Crassus| 3.19.13 @ 1:51PM
NEOCON! NEOCON! NEOCON!
Dai Alanye | 3.19.13 @ 6:57PM
I guess according to Jack the "Shores of Tripoli" should be excised from the Marine Hymn, and a descendant of Decatur should apologize for the destruction of the Philadelphia.
Larry E| 3.19.13 @ 7:15AM
Well done Mr. Lord. We've no time for poorly reasoned arguments or reactionary politics.
Hewing tthe line
Larry E| 3.19.13 @ 7:17AM
Well done Mr. Lord. We've no time for poorly reasoned arguments or reactionary politics.
Hewing to the line, thinking through our arguments to their logical conclusions and behaving as if history REALLY ought to inform our arguments are essential to conservative victory.
Larry E| 3.19.13 @ 7:15AM
Well done Mr. Lord. We've no time for poorly reasoned arguments or reactionary politics.
Hewing tthe line
7-08| 3.19.13 @ 7:49AM
Every time, time after time - over and over and over and over - you return to office the same insufferable fools that are destroying the country.
Every time, time after time - over and over and over and over – these same people tell you only what you want to hear during the endless campaign - knowing full well when they get to the beltway the only voices they will hear are of the lobbyists.
Every time, time after time - over and over and over and over – they stab you in the back, they make deals with the enemies or our Republic, and they use every dishonest manipulation of the system to maintain their incumbency.
Every time, time after time - over and over and over and over – you fall for it.
Republicans are the most gullible entity the world has ever seen. The only thing that actually separates them from true sheep is their misdirected anger that a certain percentage of people that actually understand the seriousness of their bi-partisan incest and do not vote lockstep.
The slaughter chute beckons; when you elect incumbents (or offspring of incumbents) they claim mandate; when you fail to support candidates directly the RNC uses your funds against you and for this destructive continuance; when you fail to change the people responsible only you are responsible.
God save us, we are in the embrace of lunatics.
Quartermaster| 3.19.13 @ 7:59AM
Lord's evaluation turns history, and reality, on its head. The foreign policy of the neocons is Wilsonian to its core. Meaning, in short, it's a leftist foreign policy which has us banging our heads on a wall we will never get through, fighting wars in which we have little interest.
By contrast, Vietnam was a necessary war in our policy of containment of the communist menace and was part of what reduced Soviet belicosity to i,mpotence in the 70s, and brought about their destruction in the 80s. Iraq was a bad idea, while Aghanistan was where we needed to fight, but that war should have begun in Karachi, not Kabul. Instead the neocons saw the pakis as our friends, when they are no one's friends, including of their own.
The neocon foreign policy is leftist to its core and neefds to be consigned to teh dust bin of history and teh country will have a chance to recover its sanity. As it stands now, we have two leftist parties that do little more than destroy the country, and that includes idiots like Bush, McCain and Miss Graham.
Don't know if you've noticed or not, but the RNC has decided that amnesty for illegal aliens is just peachy and shall be their official stance on the issue. Stupid is as stupid does.
7-08| 3.19.13 @ 9:39AM
Halford MacKinder’s heartland theory in some circles was the geopolitical rational for explaining the Viet Nam and Afghanistan conflicts. It did not account for the former. As a matter of fact the British and German schools of geography suffer from the empire mentality of the “sun never sets” and the Third Reich ethnocentrism of only the Asian landmass.
Free water ports have been supplanted by pipelines and Canals in the global petro-economy, the “green revolution” (no not environment) of crop yield manipulation (irrigation) and hybrids have delayed the geographer Malthus’s dire predations, and the other major populated continent Africa has proven the inverse –wheel barrows of diamonds out, no transportation capable of getting food in and the “rim” has supplanted the “heartland.”
North America will survive – we have everything we need; the Great Plains to provide food, fracking to provide a century of clean cheap energy, and an ample supply of peons to do the heavy lifting.
The only thing that can do us in is the aging nuclear arsenal of Russia or some scientist with a bio-lab.
Mike W| 3.19.13 @ 8:33AM
Ron Paul has long been proven right about Iraq. He is wrong with his support of amnesty.
Bob K| 3.19.13 @ 9:02AM
Let's hear your reasons why the Republican party should or should not support amnesty, Mr. Lord.
That's the big issue facing the party, not this nonsense.
4 or 5 pages ought to do it. Should be easy for you!
Tanguera| 3.19.13 @ 9:20AM
So.
First out of the box was Andrew McCarthy with his article. Next up: his good friend Mark Levin criticizing Rand Paul on his radio program last night, on a program which was by and large not about foreign policy. Now, we have Mark's good friend Jeffrey Lord doing his part.
I pretty much adore McCarthy, Levin and Lord. But, guys, couldn't you at least have waited?
In the past four years, we have had one national politician take a bold stand against tyranny -- a stand which broke through the media embargo on such political gestures.
Briefly, therefore, we had some hope that there just might be some effective political pushback against the tyranny.
But no.
Some of the best articulators and defenders of liberty have plunged us into hopelessness again.
How, Messrs. Levin and Lord, could you have done this the day after the Speaker stuns us by saying that he trusts the President "absolutely" and that there is "no immediate debt crisis".
What were you thinking?
William R| 3.19.13 @ 9:34AM
Good gravy, Jeffrey Lord back spouting the BS that NeoConism is truly conservatism and Robert Taft, Eisenhower and Reagan were leftist. Reagan his former boss was a Dove when it came to putting American troops in harms way. That's why Reagan said the biggest mistake of his Presidency was putting the Marines in Lebanon. Because I hate to break the news to this idiot, real conservatives view war as the very very last option. War grows government and restricts civil liberties.
Bottom line, limited government is impossible with a Jeffrey Lord Bill Kristol foreign policy.
A Foreign Policy for Conservatives: Robert A. Taft” by Russell Kirk
http://www.theimaginativeconse.....bert/#more
Lord is an embarrassment not only to this magazine, but to the legacy of Reagan.
Crassus| 3.19.13 @ 1:48PM
NEOCON! NEOCON! NEOCON!
Arnie| 3.19.13 @ 9:37AM
"Reagan did not send American troops everywhere around the world to make new democracies of societies unfit to maintain them in the first place."
Uhh um....WRONG!
Reagan did this:
1. Bombed and engaged Libya.
2. Sent troops to Lebanon.
3. Sent troops to Grenada.
4. Funded terrorists that killed civilians in Nicaragua.
5. Funded with military aid a dictator that killed civilians in Guatemala.
6. Funded with military aid a hunta that killed civilians in El Salvador.
7. Funded terrorists with money and military aid in Afghanistan. We all know how that turned out.
8. Sent weapons and money to Iraq (Saddam Hussein)
9. Sent weapons to Iran.
Reagan was not a conservative on foreign policy.
William R| 3.19.13 @ 9:49AM
You're dumber than Jeffrey Lord.
1. Reagan retaliated against Libya for the Berlin Bombing.
2. Sent troops to Lebanon, suicide bomber killed 220+Marines he pulled them out and said it was the biggest mistake of his Presidency.
3. Grenada was a mission to rescue American students being held hostage.
4. Reagan supplied arms to the Contras who were fighting the communist Sandanistas.
5
6
7
8
9
All Cold war policies of containing Soviet expansion. Reagan did not commit troops. He was very much the foreign policy realist. Not a foreign policy hawk Neocons like Lord try to make him out to be.
How Reagan Beat the Neocons.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06.....ocons.html
Arnie| 3.19.13 @ 10:13AM
Oh yes, all that was necessary to contain the USSR. Because if Reagan had not done all that, we would have communism in Missouri.
Bullshit.
TLP| 3.19.13 @ 10:54AM
Just so you know?
You don't actually need to write: "Bullshit" at the end of your Comments.
We already know it's Bullshit.
It's always Bullshit.
Arnie| 3.19.13 @ 11:56AM
"It's always Bullshit." --at the end of your comment.
You describing your incoherent rants and one -liners I see.
JP| 3.19.13 @ 11:12AM
Yes, the poor Soviets. All they wished to do was to spread truth, love, and borsch to the suffering masses of a very wicked world.
Kwan| 3.19.13 @ 2:28PM
Duuuuhhhh yeah. In today's episode of Da Awnie Speaks, Da Awnie gives us 5000 reasons why we'll all be better off once Comrade Obama converts the United States into Cuba. And don't forget to buy Da Awnie's new book, "Communism for Dummies" currently ranked #1,675,890,348,997,896,222 on Amazon's Best Sellers List.
UpChuck.Liberals| 3.20.13 @ 12:22AM
Your geography needs a little refreshing. The Communism is in Washington D.C. McCarthy was right.
Crassus| 3.19.13 @ 1:47PM
NEOCON! NEOCON! NEOCON!
Jeff| 3.19.13 @ 4:03PM
William R...
Your inability to understand the differences between Reaganites and NeoCons amuses.
JP| 3.19.13 @ 11:10AM
Arnie,
You may want to re-think Reagan and Iraq. Iraq was a qausi-satellite of the USSR. The Iraqi army was fully trained, equipped, and paid for by the USSR. We didn't destroy many M-1 tanks, or F-14s in 1991, did we?
William R| 3.19.13 @ 9:39AM
"More to the point — there is nothing “new” here. These ideas, which in various incarnations date back to progressive icons from George McGovern to Henry Wallace to the pacifist William Jennings Bryan are as old as, well, old mossbacks. Like the socialist ideas on domestic policy which they usually accompany."
Mr. Antiwar Republican
http://www.theimaginativeconse.....bert/#more
Lord turns history on its head
Anthony| 3.19.13 @ 9:49AM
Well Mr. Lord, you are quite correct, while I admire Rand in many ways, nonetheless, Rand Paul needs close watching, for sure. Much of what you have highlighted about Rand is cause for concern.
That said, he is still a breath of bold fresh air, as opposed to McLame and Grahamisty.
As for Jeb Bush, the boy doesn't get it. By the time he attempts to reinstitute his brothers "doing the jobs Americans won't do" bullshit with illegal aliens, and compassionate Conservativism II, America will have already hit the iceberg John Boner says is a year, two away.
There is nothing to watch for in Jeb Bush, the man, in my book, is TOAST. He is obviously running for president; if nominated, the R party is finished, and I am finished with the R party.
William R| 3.19.13 @ 9:55AM
Lord is not correct, he's a delusional crank. The ultimate Chicken Hawk.
Anthony| 3.19.13 @ 10:26AM
Given that I respect Von Mises, who appers to agree with you, William R, I will give this a fresh look.
However, his father's position on the Iraq War and the cause of 9/11 will always trouble me deeply. If Rand has similar thoughts, then we have a problem.
Crassus| 3.19.13 @ 1:46PM
CHICKEN HAWK! CHICKEN HAWK! CHICKEN HAWK!
darcy| 3.19.13 @ 2:27PM
I'm already finished with the Republican Party since the House herd refused to unseat Boehner as Speaker; that was the VERY last straw. We may as well have a Democrat-controlled House for all the not-so-good the GOP is doing with it. Oh, I forgot, Repubs these days are donkeys in elephant drag. Silly me for thinking -- and hoping -- otherwise.
darcy| 3.19.13 @ 3:23PM
And I am STILL waiting for Amspec to discuss the content of Ann Coulter's CPAC speech in which she deals with the 1965 Immigration and Nationality ACT.
What are you people afraid of????
Pseudo-Macarius| 3.19.13 @ 9:00PM
Yes, Darcy is right about Boehner....What were they thinking of electing this Bone-head as Speaker?
William R| 3.19.13 @ 9:59AM
Mr Antiwar Republian
http://www.theamericanconserva.....epublican/
William R| 3.19.13 @ 10:03AM
The GOP on Foreign Policy: Rhetoric v. Reality
http://www.cato.org/publicatio.....-v-reality
Tanguera| 3.19.13 @ 10:11AM
We must ask ourselves why McCarthy, then Levin, then Lord are criticizing Paul now -- not long after Twitter showed that his stand for freedom even appealed to some liberals.
I'm going to bet that Mr. McCarthy -- whom I otherwise admire greatly -- yielded to pressure. From whom? Of course, I don't know.
To support my hypothesis, however, recall that Mark Levin spent a good portion of one of his programs stumping for Senator Hatch during the Senator's umpteenth primary. On account of Hatch's support for Justice Clarence Thomas, of course.
Had thought Mark was consistent prior to that.
Ditto McCarthy and Lord. Darn it.
Guys, have you not noticed that Reps. Boehner and McCarthy are positively gleeful if not giddy now? Why? IMHO, some deal has been struck. They must know the Republican Party will never get the base out -- not even with the charade of VP picks such as Palin. So, what is up?
Millions of Americans want someone to stand up to tyranny. They'll vote for just that alone, IMHO.
Please harden yourselves against Establishment pressure.
The GOP is smart enough to realize that the Democrats will always find a way to characterize them as intolerant, etc. So, what is up?
Dai Alanye | 3.19.13 @ 7:07PM
The fact that liberals agree with Rand Paul is the best reason in the world to criticize him. The same is true regarding the heavy Democrat vote for Ron Paul during the primaries. Without Dems and "independents" Ron Paul would have hardly been a footnote in 2012.
bustunloose| 3.19.13 @ 10:16AM
That Bush won in 2000 and 2004 is a testimony to him and his team. They won against impossible odds. The Reagan Era is gone-the New Deal and FDR are still kicking. Rove and Coulter and the rest , including Jeb et al, are telling the truth. You people are rocks living on your island. You simply fail to acknowlede the majority who vote Republican,and are pragmatic and realistic. We will determine the future of the GOP-not you.
JP| 3.19.13 @ 11:16AM
And that Pragmatism cost 3000 people their lives on 9/11.
And that Pragmatism led to $17 trillion of debt. If we get any more pragmatic we will all be Democrats. Remember, there would have been no Obama if there hadn't first been a Bush. Bush is to Obama what John the Baptist was to Christ. He paved the way.
William R| 3.19.13 @ 10:27AM
Jeffrey Lord Exits Stage Left
http://americasfuture.org/doub.....tage-left/
cicero| 3.19.13 @ 11:40AM
I think we are getting our dander up a bit early. Before we start anointing Jeb or Rand, or anyone else as the candidate for '16, we should be concentrating on '14. Whoever emerges over the next 4 years will, in all likelihood, not be Rand, Jeb, or Rubio. Over the next 4 years, we will see a lot of bright, ambitious, economically sane candidates approach the ring, hat in hand. It is too early to start picking anyone apart.
Priebus and the Reps have announced that they will be spending money and time developing candidates to challenge in the bi-election. He sounded like they were going to base their choices on brains, philosophy, and spark, rather than "incumbency". That may make a difference. I do not believe that moving to the left on issues like amnesty, abortion rights, or gay marriage, is going to inflame the base in the manner the pundits and "mossbacks" (to use Mr. Lord's term), say will reinvigorate what is now the Republican Party.
Based on the comments, I also think it is time for the Paul-bots to rejoin the pack. We are never going to get a condidate who is conservative enough for everyones' tastes. However, it would be nice if we could just nominate someone who is not ashamed to stand up for, and espouses conservative principles. That formula works well whenever tried.
Bob K| 3.19.13 @ 9:31PM
It doesn't matter.
There aren't enough Republicans to win. If the party is to be successful it will have to reach out to the people we have come to call the "Reagan Democrats." And to these people the issues of amnesty, abortion, and gay marriage matter very much.
These are the people who supported the party in the 2010 elections and made the turnaround in the House of Representatives possible.
How soon we forget.
acrossthedam| 3.19.13 @ 12:26PM
Mr. Lord,
I triple-dog-dare-you to describe conservatism without once referencing Ronald Reagan.
And please, never use "Reaganesque" to describe something ever again. Rarely does a young conservative feel "cool," but that doesn't mean old farts of the right should publicly shame us (see John McCain or Lindsey Graham).
Sincerely,
A Young Conservative
Jeff| 3.19.13 @ 3:46PM
Acrossthe dam:
Freedom.
Liberty.
Free-market economics.
Peace through Strength.
Done.
And neither McCain nor Graham are Reaganesque. Oops! Sorry.
aware| 3.19.13 @ 4:48PM
He still thinks Reagan is the answer and it's always 1980 again. Closer to 1984, if you know what I mean.
Jeff| 3.19.13 @ 4:51PM
aware...
I think conservatism is the answer. Period.
aware| 3.20.13 @ 5:40AM
"Conservatives" are too enamored with the Garrison State to really care about liberty. Perennial victims of the crisis cycle, they are easily duped out of the liberties won by blood with the promise of "security".
For "conservatives" there is always a wolf at the door that requires we all set aside what made America unique to fight the wolf. Then there is always another wolf. This is how they have done their part to usher in the Police State.
So much for the first 3 items on your list. As to the 4th....what peace?
Crassus| 3.19.13 @ 12:41PM
Sonny Boy Paul in 2013 is the equivalent of Donald Trump in 2011. One or two fiery speeches and 40% of Republicans want him to be their next Presidential nominee. Talk about a bunch of desperate sheep. Hells bells.
William R| 3.19.13 @ 1:25PM
You've always been one of the bigger idiots on this forum.
Crassus| 3.19.13 @ 1:44PM
And you have a two inch penis so I guess that makes us even.
vigilant| 3.19.13 @ 1:51PM
A candidate's ability to connect with voters on the issues is, like it or not, often secondary to the ability to connect on an emotional level. And right now, the response to Rand has a huge visceral component. Finally, someone with some sand stepped up, looked evil in the eye and called it out. A refreshing, don't-tread-on-me display of American heart, principle and patriotism. He stood up there for all of us who want to do the same. So for now, he is being lauded as the one who added kindling to our brave but flickering flame of hope, and for that we are grateful. We haven't forgotten his stand on important issues, and he'll have to battle that out with fellow contenders over the next few years. But he's made us proud of his spirit and reaffirmed our resolve to protect, against all odds, the precious principles that made our nation the city on the hill, knowing we have some allies in high places who care as passionately as we do. So for now, let him enjoy his "Thank you!" from battle-weary patriots who just got some encouragement to keep fighting the good fight.
rightwinger| 3.20.13 @ 12:16AM
The electorate was 89% White in the 80s vs. the low 70s now. Assuming the same R/D voting patterns per racial group, both McCain and Romney would have won with an 80s demographic voter makeup while Reagan would have just barely beaten Mondale with today's while Bush would have lost to Dukakis. The demographics don't look good for our side.
Lord seems to think that all we need to do to win is nominate more conservative candidates. Does he really think Gingrich or Santorum would have done better than Romney in '12? Are we supposed to believe that millions of voters either stayed home or voted for Obama because our nominee wasn't conservative enough?
Our only hope is to start nominating candidates who are excellent salespeople. Cruz sounds like he could fit the bill and maybe there are others as well.
That's my $0.02.
alice921| 3.20.13 @ 12:30PM
Its definitely the most-financially rewarding I ve ever done. Make money with Google. On thursday I got a brand new Chevrolet Corvette since I been earnin $5269 this-past/4 weeks and-even more than, $10,000 this past month. I work through this link, http://tw.gs/YbVcey