Obviously, you believe this is the wrong means to the end, but I want my proposal to be clear.

Obviously, you believe this is the wrong means to the end, but I want my proposal to be clear.

He was a bad president, just like his son, and quite frankly if that is all we can expect from Republicans then I would just as soon let the democrats run the country into the ground. At least that way conservatism doesn’t get the blame.

I will NEVER, and i repeat EVER support in any way shape or form, ever again, a Republican candidate who is not a movement conservative or at least a fiscal conservative/libertarian.

No amount of fear or calling for solidarity will ever budge me on this ever again. And I wager I speak for a lot of people.

But if we’re willing to send George H. W. Bush over to the Democrats, then we are no longer interested in having a Republican Party but only a Conservative Party. But a Conservative Party composed of purists will never get more than 30-35% of the national vote.

Let’s be careful what we ask for.

This does NOT mean we have to approve of all the policies of George H. W. Bush. On the contrary, even a moderate Republican should not have signed the Americans with Disabilities Act! That was a clear error. But Republicans won’t have the chance to make errors if the party cannot reach a majority.

So what’s more important – keeping our hands clean while the Democrats become a permanent majority, or attaining office and accomplishing certain goals, even at the cost of making errors sometimes?

I’m as angry as you that the country doesn’t follow the constitutional interpretation and domestic policies that Pres. Coolidge followed. But it’s been 80 years. We have to have the right aims and principles, but also understand that it’s going to take many steps to reverse a lot of what has happened in the interim.

So let’s put up conservative nominees for president, and as many conservatives as possible for the House and Senate. But let’s not think we can get where we need to go without the help of moderates like George H. W. Bush. Until we can persuade the majority of Americans to be solid conservatives, we will need the help of moderates in the short term.

:>)

I’m knee jerk reacting to the regional thing because that seems to be the fall back arguement coming form the big tent, squishy accommodaters now that they’ve been shown for the fools they are by McGoo and company.

Sorry if I got it wrong…

Can you name a moderate you’d be happy with?

Now, with respect to your list…
j.c. watts… I consider him to be a solid conservative. I don’t consider him to be guy who has the requisite leadership skills to herd the cats at this point in our collective lives.

gingrich… Great idea guy. Solid conservative. Not a leader in any sense of the word. He was on top of the world in ’94 and crumbled in a heartbeat at the onslaught of the Clinton machine. The guy would be great in an administrative post where he was responsible for idea generation and had no managerial/leadership duties or expectations whatsoever.

carly fiorina… Just why would we want somebody who was an utter, complete, unadulterated failure as a CEO to lead the Party. She’s OK as a public face as long as she’s dealing with people who don’t challenge her “record” at HP. She couldn’t deal with the corporate wolves, she’d not last 15 seconds against the media and the Ds. I’d rather see Lincoln Chafee.

bill owens… I don’t really know anything about him so I’ll refrain from making my ignorance obvious.

Now, back to my original question. Without the parsing foolishness, name someone who YOU consider to be a moderate who is acceptable to you.

but some things did not change from old to new. read a 1948 campaign speech by truman, such as his speech in toledo, ohio on sept. 6, and you’ll see just what i mean. he advocates for big labor and price controls. doesn’t sound too much like george h. w. bush.

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/1948campaign/large/docs/index.php

look also at his speech in dexter, iowa on sept. 18 of 1948, in which he rails against the “gluttons of privilege” that the republican party allegedly supports and protects.

these are just a couple example of the continuity of the “old” and “new” democratic parties.

So President Bush falls under the old Democrat label because the NEW Democrat label is one of whining and crying and victimhood and I guarantee you that was NOT the Democrats of old that is a a 40 year decline.

The spectrum is quite different in 2009 than it was just 40 short years ago! when you think of right to left!

I am not prescribing this plan, but it can win if your sole desire is to gain office. In this country we have yet to accept a sociialist consensus, we are still fighting over that. The problem I see for this party, other than education/indoctrination is that we do not have any Reagan’s in waiting. OK we have jindal, and some think Palin (yesterdays news) but our Senate if full of the types that lead us into the wilderness.

I am worried about this party, it is not cool among the kids ,the seniors beieve we will take their checkk and as usual, minorities vote for those who want to keep them down to ensure their vote. the boder is a joke, fence or not, our nation is inundated by criminalsk, many of who vote.

It seem to me we have ony two chances 1) we get a Reaganescque firgure to lead us or 2) we fix education and hope man can learn frorm their forebearsl