Probably just the Fair Tax people. Not sure how big that group is though.

Went a little beyond closing loopholes. It eliminated deductions businesses could use and added withholding tax on interest and dividends. Drastically raised taxes on things like cigarettes and phones. Also increased the unemployment tax people/businesses pay.

Calling the largest non-war tax increase in the nation's history "I guess it's raising taxes" and "made folks pay what they were already supposed to" is just partisian revionist history.

We can throw in increasing the threshold on Social Security taxes as well as overall payroll taxes. Oh, and taxing up to half of people's social security benefits.

Can't fathom how any of that would fly today in conservative world. At least he never passed some massive health care bill that put a burden on to employers. Oh wait.....

I guess suggesting that we were at war in the 1980s is revisionism as well? The Cold War doesn't ring any bells with you I suppose. In any event, having the massive tax cut to help stave off the Carter-led recession being left out of your fact-finding mission is not the most fair representation of Reagan's tax history.


Democrats only want social programs to win votes, they usually leave the reform aftermath of these programs to hard-working Republicans since afterall, it's their constiuents that actually pay for it.[quote]


By the time Carters-recession was complete, unemployment sat at 9.5%. It required a lot of efforts on the part of Reagan to bring that back down to around 5% and at the same time he managed to beat the Soviets at their stupid communist expansion game. The mess he was left makes Obama's contant badgery of President Bush laughable, but if the only thing you want to take from it is that he raised taxes so therefore conservatives would hate him, have at it. I can't think of a single politician across the entire American political spectrum that could defeat 1980 Reagan or 1984 Reagan. I can't think of one that wouldn't get landlsided by him. He was a true Republican but he could reach out to the left with more than words.

Where am I getting a sense of Deja Vu here. President takes over during massive recession. Has a sort of complicated foreign conflict that requires massive spending. Does massive tax cuts to help stave off that recession. Later raises certain taxes to help fill the gaps in the deficit.

That's the funny thing. I wasn't bashing Reagan at all. In fact, I agree with a ton of what he did. It's funny because it's basically THE SAME FUCKING THING OBAMA IS DOING. The difference is to partisians like you is that one has a D next to their name, and the other has an R. With partisian hackery, it's not policy vs policy, it's D vs R. You guys are making politics an embarassment.


All politicians want social programs to win votes. Where were these hard-working Republicans during Medicare reform, No Child Left Behind, faith-based initiatives, farm subsidies, bailouts, or even TARP? They were in power, either holding a heavy majority in both chambers or having the guy who signs the bills into law.

As for whos consitutents are paying for it, remember that the Blue states pay in much more in taxes than the Red states, and receive less than what they paid in back. That shouldn't be an issue though, just pointing out the bullshit about how all social programs come from those dirty Democrats.


Reagan was a great politician. Inspired people, instilled confidence, and got his point across. He would be very tough to beat in any election. Just as Obama was a great politician going into the 2008 campaign.

But that has nothing to do with the fact that Reagan would be called a RINO today and be an outcast to most conservatives. Many of the things conservatives are going after Obama for are the same things Reagan did. It's just one has an R and one has a D next to their name. That's all that matters to you people.

Are conservatives saying this or are you saying this for conservatives? There's a big difference.

I'm basing it on what conservatives are calling a RINO these days. The "purity test" handed out by the RNC.

A Purity Test For The GOP? | TPMDC

Reagan wouldn't have passed the test on a lot of those things. He created a huge deficit and ran up debt. He raised taxes on businesses and people. He wasn't all about free-market health care either.

Perhaps the biggest one is #6. The issue that gets McCain, Graham and other Republicans called RINOs. Reagan granted amnesty to illegals.

Heh, learn something new everyday, never heard of this before now. So...Google to the rescue!

Yes, it's true that the Republican Party does not operate in lock-step. In relation to this specific 'test'...I would disagree it was "handed out by the RNC"...Michael Steele rejected it, the RNC rejected it, and the conservatives--that caught wind of this--were overwhelmingly opposed to it. It was pushed by some guy named Jim Bopp of Right to Life. Hardly a mainstream advocate of the RNC and this article kind of proves it.

Republicans reject 'purity test' - Jonathan Martin - POLITICO.com

From what I'm reading I, for instance, line up with Oregon GOP Chairman Bob Tiernan (fierce opposition to), not Jim Bopp (drafter and advocate of).

Also, your argument makes even less sense by citing the "RINO", center-right John McCain who obviously was nominated for President by the RNC.

If Reagan were alive I have no doubt he'd shape himself into what could get elected. He was a gifted politician and not so much of an ideologue that he would sacrifice electoral success for purity.

However, the policies that Reagan supported as a governor and President would make him toxic to today's GOP that sees people like Bob Bennett, Lindsey Graham, John McCain, Dede Scozzafava, etc. as too liberal.

He negotiated with the Soviets, when today a new START treaty is being opposed by much of the GOP.

He left Beirut, when today's GOP would say he cut and ran.

He traded arms to the Iranians, which would get AIPAC and its supporters to oppose him.

As a governor he signed into law a permissive abortion bill. That in itself would be hard to overcome.

He had a very close relationship with Tip O'Neill and negotiated with the Dems on almost everything.


The Reagan that the GOP reveres is a caricature of the real man. He's become an ideological guidepost, but the real man was willing to compromise on almost any detail to forward his larger goals. IMO he was certainly conservative enough, but in today's GOP it's hard to see how his actions wouldn't be attacked as too liberal, too weak, and too godless.

BTW, I'm pretty sure that "purity" is a new liberal label. I'm not sure though.


Since when do Presidents have the full ideological backing of everybody intheir party? I don't get this line of rationalization. Certainly not every Democrat thought it no big deal that Barack Obama had absolutely no experience dealing wtih Big Oil and their safety regulations and the such?


Not really, I suspect that most GOP'ers are fine with the current treaty, but need to oppose it at levels which will cripple further reductions at this time.


Beirut was our "Welcome to the terrorism party", a party that we had absolutely no understanding of. Leaving U.S. Marines in Beirut to get massacred while we figured it out is political revisionist baiting. We had no business staying there at that point in time. By suggesting that doing the right thing and pulling those Marines was something the GOP would have lashed out at is really degrading your ability to articulate your understanding of the GOP.


Really? The Israeli's were against us trading arms to Iran? Good to know.


Actually, I'd bet it would be easier for a Republican President to do that than a Democrat President.


That's how he got his landslide victories. Would the hardline right want that? Of course not, but again, most of the American right is center-right, not the hardline right that gets all the left-leaning press and coverage in the liberal blogosphere.


If anything the American center-right is craving a politician like Reagan to come along. We are severely hurting for popular leadership right now, there is no doubt about that.

There was a lot of outrage over it, but is anything in that test against what conservatives believe? Do conservatives want a President who will raise taxes, create new health care regulations, stomp on states rights, and give amnesty to illegals? Maybe my definition of conservative is not the same as yours. Let me know if what Reagan did fits into your definition of the word.

And as I said, none of this is to bash Reagan. A lot of the stuff he did I agree with. He was a good President. I just find the revisionist history with him amusing when you hear people talk about how he's the bastion of conservatism. The guy was far from conservative outside of some social issues, and he even took a ton of heat from his own party for being too moderate.

It's just funny that he is held on a pedestal by partisian Republicans when he did the same stuff Obama is doing.

Well not ever Republican is a conservative. And the Republican party has shifted much farther to the right over the last year or two. But McCain was destroyed by conservatives for being too moderate and it was the reason he had to choose Palin. A simple Google search will pull up thousands of conservative sites calling him a RINO for his stance on immigration. Reagan gave amnesty to illegals but isn't a RINO.

john mccain rino amnesty - Google Search

You think a Republican President could sign into law a bill that legalized abortion? Oh God, what planet are you on?

We've been over this. Reagan didn't really beat the Soviets. It was the rising standard of living among the average American combined with the realization of this by Warsaw Pact civilians that further exacerbated the supply/demand issue in the Soviet economic system (namely that they couldn't sustain a production level that would feed their military machine and yet also significantly raise the standard of living across their Empire), particularly in the Warsaw Pact nations, coupled with the failure of the Soviet Amry in Afghanistan (both the morale/self-identity issues that that raised, as well as more importantly the fires of ethnic self-determination and separatism that it fanned throughout the Warsaw Pact nations and the various Soviet Republics).

Dutch: You're saying that in the eighties Reagan appealed to conservatives. I agree. My point is that the things Reagan did in the eighties wouldn't appeal to conservatives of today. I bet if you asked people about policies and didn't mention the name Reagan that a majority of conservatives would disapprove of that candidate.

Well, you didn't say all abortions...

Any abortions.

I don't think you'd find a legitimate Republican candidate today who as President would sign any bill for abortion rights.

And if one of them had an attack of conscience and did an about-face on the party platform and signed one...well I think you'd see a sitting President fail to win the nomination of his party.

Of course not, it's not 1980. I guess we could go 'round and 'round on this, but if the best way you can find to discredit Ronald Reagan is to say his 1980 platform doesn't equate to the 2010 platform, than you got it. We don't need to beat the Soviets anymore. We don't need to sort out the Iran Hostage crisis. So yes, I would disapprove of somebody with those things in mind.

I just don't think you appreciate just how effective a guy like Ronald Reagan was and crossing the isle and getting everybody on board.

Not sure how that relates to my point about today.

I'm not trying to discredit Reagan. I'm saying the GOP has moved so far towards an almost religious belief in doctrine that their supposed leading light doesn't match the need for doctrinal purity.

I have a lot of differences with Reagan's politics, but I think one of his strong points was the ability to go against his stated doctrinal preferences when he felt the need to do that. In today's GOP, however, that sort of practical flexibility is seen as a weakness. Do you really think six major tax increases, even coupled with major tax cuts, would fly with today's GOP?

Or more selectively edited media designed to discredit the admin. From Powerline:

ding ding ding.

JPhillips wins.

FWIW, which may not be much, I don't disagree at all with the assertion that Reagan would be an iffy proposition at best as a GOP Presidential candidate in 2010.

On the one hand, a weak-sister like McCain did recently win a nomination, so that bodes in Reagan's favor. On the other hand, if you extrapolate what compromises he would seem likely to be willing to make onto today's issues landscape, I doubt he finishes better than 2nd in the majority of primaries.

In spite of specific examples from his era that seem relevant today, I believe some extrapolation would still be necessary since the landscape is different, the world hasn't continued in a complete vacuum from then until now. We can make some educated guesses but we can't know for sure where he'd fall on a given issue without complete context.

I have a sincere appreciation for some of the tremendous good Reagan did (or at least lent the bully pulpit to) but there's also area where I'd be highly critical of his decisions/positions. Certainly not ready to canonize him by any means.

Like I said earlier, if Reagan were alive today I have no doubt he'd mold himself into a candidate that could win. He was a tremendous politician going all the way back to his first run at governor.

I think Glenn Beck just had an aneurysm and Rush is on a eating binge.

If Ronald Reagan was in office today, the GOP would have it's opposition, but it would generally fly with him.

Look at the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Would those be largely ignored by the left today if it were President McCain? Hell no, it would be an endless stream of organized protests and negative media. With President Obama in charge, the left largely accepts the continuation of those wars because their guy is in office. Couple that with the fact that it will get no resistance from the opposition and it's just good politics.

Sure that would be true if Reagan were in office, a party does tend to coalesce around their guy, but my point was that Reagan couldn't win the primary with his record. The GOP has gotten much tougher on unorthodox behavior than it was in 1980.

vs. whom? There isn't anybody out there right now...the only thing a Republican leader needs right now is a little bit of non-polarizing charisma and he/she is a shoe-in for the nomination.


Right. The entire conversation is based completey on opinions and depending on where you stand politically, your opinion will match your response.


I am. Of course, seeing how Reagan is my favorite President to date, that should explain a lot.

If anything I think the GOP is suffering from being leaderless and the vacuum has enabled a lot of fringe elements to cast their voice when they normally shouldn't be so effective to do so.

Who are the current leaders of the GOP? Sarah Palin? Michael Steele? Meh. Who won the Presidential Nomination though? The moderate. That's where the votes are and always have been.

To what end though? Largely rhetorical question I suppose, never mind.


Or, apparently, possibly the reverse.

And how's that working out? We've seen the abject failure of nominating a weak ass excuse like McCain. Further, more & more people seem to be realizing that such a hollow victory really isn't much cause for celebration.

I believe the failure of McCain's campaign (regarding moderate leaning voters) is directly related to one Sarah Palin. I was leaning towards voting for McCain up until he picked her to be his Vice President. She made Dan Quayle look like a genius. Practically everyone that I talked to that was on the fence like me, said pretty much the exact same thing. Yes, purely anecdotal, but, nonetheless, a rather accurate assessment in my opinion.

I think McCain would have won or would have had a much better chance of winning had he not decided to run with Palin.

Wow, never thought I'd see the day where JIMGA & JPhillips would combine to beat up on Dutch.

:popcorn:

Wow. Never thought I'd see the day that Powerline would defend the Obama Administration.

:popcorn: :popcorn:

McCain + Romney + the financial meltdown of September, 2008 could have been the "lucky" combination to swing the race back to McCain. But when you have Rovian disciple Steve Schmidt managing your campaign, you're always going to err on the side of firing up the radical base, and so that's where they went with Palin.

I can definitely see that. Makes me wonder if many or any at all future presidential candidates will use any of the Rove decendants or if they will continue to fly in the face of past failures and not learn anything from McCain's campaign.

Catering to the radical base is way too gimicky to win a presidential campaign, in my opinion, when there are so many undecided voters that you could win over by keeping the radical base where they belong...in the corner with their mouths taped shut.

It's funny how Dutch and you are ostensibly under the same tent.

But he won the nomination and will likely win his Senate reelection in part by forswearing what he supported a few years ago. From immigration to cap and trade to the bank bailout, McCain has had to distance himself from beliefs that don't fit the orthodoxy of the GOP.

Two points.

One, the radical base is important because of volunteer time and money.

Two, Bob Shrum and Mark Penn still work for Democrats and they lose everything. Once they are in the circle of trust political consultants never seem to be cast out.

Funny, that's a pretty good description of how I feel about the weak assed middle. I've got little respect for people who lack the courage of pretty much any conviction, nor for those who seem to seek every opportunity to consort with the enemy. If they can be used for some purpose & at no loss of principle, great, otherwise fuck 'em since they're part of the problem instead of the solution.

LMAO

Maybe it's not that they lack conviction, but rather that they are intelligent enough to relaize that pragmatism dictates that compromise is necessary in order to get some things done (instead of getting nothing done and sticking to their convictions).

Oh shit...who am I kidding. Look who I'm trying to tell that too. :lol:

Being in the middle != without conviction

I do think there is a lot of wierd hindsight happening. I seem to remember thinking regardless of who won the GOP primary, they'd get smoked by Obama simply because Dubya was so utterly hated. I think people forget that.

McCain/Romney was about as likely as Obama/SteveMax58 though. I agree with the premise though...maybe a McCain/Huckabee ticket accomplishes the same goal.

Nah, cuz Huckabee doesn't project the same sense of fiscal knowledge that Romney does.

Yeah, but neither does Obama or Biden. Huckabee could certainly have held his own (and likely better) against Biden while also not scaring the swing voters away with complete lunacy.

But McCain's 2nd biggest mistake (next to Palin) IMO was supporting the bank bailout. Right, wrong, or indifferent...he would have been able to distance himself from Bush's policies (whereas Obama supported it) while also catering the his base's outrage.

Maybe my idea of radical base is different? When I think of radical base, I think of the people shooting abortion doctors and the Fred Phelps clan members or the tree huggers that chain themselves to trees or PETA and their lame organization. Besides the fact of giving so much attention to such a small group of people that don't contribute anything but divisiveness, doesn't make any sense.

Why keep people around that keep losing things for you? That I really don't understand.


Extreme views do not always lead to effectual or beneficial results. Yes, there are people who have no convictions at all, but, I would not describe the middle as having no convictions. Lets face it, 90% of what both sides peddle is fluff and bull shit to get themselves re-elected and the other 10% might actually be beneficial to the country. Not choosing sides and being able to pick and choose what makes sense is the logical thing to do regardless of party is sponsoring it.

I have to imagine that we differ significantly on what represents "beneficial to the country"


I won't disagree. But when one side consistently does a better job of presenting logical/acceptable/preferable options then it's pretty tough not to become de facto "sided".

It's kind of like my praise for Kerry's initial choices (based on some logical assumptions about the reasons behind them), I give a shit if he's a (D) if he's right then he's right.

But what is logical/acceptable/preferable is completely a matter of opinion.

Your problem is that even when you're agreeing here you're still being pig-headed and saying "sure I agree it makes sense to choose based on the issues. but i only find republican ideas acceptable/logical so i'm only going to choose from that universe." You refuse to even consider ideas unless they come from the same side of the aisle that you're on and are completely ideologically pure/without any compromise in them.

Even as you pay lip-service to the idea of deciding based on the individual issues, in the next sentence you go right back to being partisan. Not that that really surprises me at all at this point.

Contrast that with me. We've gone over this before so I won't rehash it all, but I'm actually fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I just tend to vote with an eye towards social issues rather than fiscal issues because neither party exactly has a shining record when it comes to fiscal responsibility these days. But if there was a socially "left-center" Republican who was fiscally conservative?? I'd vote for him. Sure I would.

Or often as not a matter of right/wrong, which has a lot less flexibility.


You're getting the process backwards though. There's no aspect of " i only find republican ideas acceptable" for me, there's simply what I find acceptable happens to coincide with where the GOP ends up. If that ceases to be (or on the occasions where they're just flat wrong) then fuck them too.
The only loyalty I have to the (R) extends as far as it suits my desires (or presents a clearly preferrable alternative between bad choices) when that isn't the case then they can go hang afaic.

Phrased differently (because the above seems pretty wordy), they aren't right because they're R's, they're right because (or when) they agree with me. It's awfully rare now that I see the D's (nationally, as a group) take a position I agree with, but how is that my fault? If they did, I'd happily back 'em. Remember, I was a (D) for a decent portion of my voting life but as many former D's point out, I haven't changed nearly as much as they have.


And you could have him, because if forced to choose, I'd much rather have the social issues be handled correctly than the fiscal ones, that's not even a point that gives me the slightest hesitation. It's just that I haven't entirely abandoned all hope of getting both right.

Therein lies the often (increasingly?) uneasy alliance that exists within the GOP as we know it today.

They'd probably have been smoked by Clinton was well. So I'm glad Obama won that race at least.