I am 100% sure that if you were posting back in 1976 you would be solidly behind Jimmy C.

Try again. I voted for Ford in '76 and Reagan in '80.

I am 100% sure that if you were posting back in 1976 you would be solidly behind Jimmy C.

 

Try again. I voted for Ford in '76 and Reagan in '80.

 

I'm pretty sure he meant that you would be solidly behind voting Jimmy C. as our worst president.

Try again. I voted for Ford in '76 and Reagan in '80.

 

Those are two excellent choices IMO. When did you go to the dark side? :lol2:

 

Kidding aside..and I am...it is the polarity of the parties that concerns me. I know it is somewhat of a Newton's third law kind of effect that the extremism of one party causes an equal and opposite reaction of the other. But I feel more optimistic for our country when we have both parties operating more in the "moderate zones" than when they are polar opposites. The chicken and the egg don't matter either (meaning whomever started it)....as long as we stay in this situation we continue to be at risk. Many of us, who normally would consider ourselves to be moderate have pushed away from the liberal agenda of the current democrats because it is too far left and coming too close to socialism.

Maybe. Probably. But I'm an optimist. It will take a special skill set to change things and more importantly it will take someone that can appeal to a broad base of Americans on important issues. While we want to blame the politicians, in reality the politicians just reflect the will of the voters. The politicians have to do so if they want to get re-elected and it's a safe bet that every one of them wants to get re-elected.

 

So in order for the grid lock to end, the next President will first have to win over the minds of a majority of Americans on key issues. That is critical. Then he or she will have to have the political courage to permit the opposing party to "get something" on the laws he or she is pushing. I harken back to Reagan. The smartest guy? No. But man could he communicate with and relate to a whole lot of Americans; more importantly, he made a whole lot of Americans relate to him. He used that to push Tip, yet didn't abuse the power, letting Tip and his interests "get something". Reagan understood better than any President of my adult lifetime that if you embarrass your opponent, it just makes that opponent more determined to take you down. Clinton was a pretty close second to Reagan in that regard.

 

I can't disagree with the Reagan/Tip analogy.

 

But I am concerned that thirty years later, that dynamic has little to no chance of materializing.

Those are two excellent choices IMO. When did you go to the dark side? :lol2:

 

Kidding aside..and I am...it is the polarity of the parties that concerns me. I know it is somewhat of a Newton's third law kind of effect that the extremism of one party causes an equal and opposite reaction of the other. But I feel more optimistic for our country when we have both parties operating more in the "moderate zones" than when they are polar opposites. The chicken and the egg don't matter either (meaning whomever started it)....as long as we stay in this situation we continue to be at risk. Many of us, who normally would consider ourselves to be moderate have pushed away from the liberal agenda of the current democrats because it is too far left and coming too close to socialism.

I agree with much of what you say. For you, the Dems moved too far left. For me, the GOP shifted too far right by worshipping at the altar of Big Business and believing that costly land wars in Asia actually would accomplish something meaningful.

I agree with much of what you say. For you, the Dems moved too far left. For me, the GOP shifted too far right by worshipping at the altar of Big Business and believing that costly land wars in Asia actually would accomplish something meaningful.

 

Reagan was the most conservative president of my lifetime and the Gingrich-led House was probably the most conservative Congress of my lifetime. It is hard to see how anybody could really believe that the Republican Party has been moving to the right. Somebody needs to learn their right from their left.

I agree with much of what you say. For you, the Dems moved too far left. For me, the GOP shifted too far right by worshipping at the altar of Big Business and believing that costly land wars in Asia actually would accomplish something meaningful.

 

Who was it that bailed out the banks? Who bailed out the auto manufacturers? Who gave the the insurance companies business by forcing people to buy insurance? Obama and his minions were the major supporters, with a few RINOS tagging along on the 1st two.

 

Which wars in Asia, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan? The 1st two were to stop the spread of communism led by Democratic presidents. Iraq twice, once to free Kuwait and the second to rid the world of the threat WMDs, as many major sources believed the dictator of Iraq had and Afghanistan to go after Bin Laden, these happening under Republicans. All of them to defend freedom and to rid ourselves of dictators. Some of the wars did not produce the outcome we wanted, but that was due mostly to politics here at home. The military was not unleashed due to political correctness.

 

If you are not willing to fight to total and complete victory, stay home.

Reagan was the most conservative president of my lifetime and the Gingrich-led House was probably the most conservative Congress of my lifetime. It is hard to see how anybody could really believe that the Republican Party has been moving to the right. Somebody needs to learn their right from their left.

The St. Ronald Reagan of Republican mythology differs from the real Gipper, who wasn't quite as conservative as the Sean Hannitys and Mitch Rapps of the world would have us believe. Link to an informative article below.

 

Republican Party most certainly has moved to the right on many issues since the days of the four bipartisan Singing Senators. You can thank the Tea Party wackos for the move right.

 

Taxes: What people forget about Reagan - Sep. 8, 2010

The St. Ronald Reagan of Republican mythology differs from the real Gipper, who wasn't quite as conservative as the Sean Hannitys and Mitch Rapps of the world would have us believe. Link to an informative article below.

 

Republican Party most certainly has moved to the right on many issues since the days of the four bipartisan Singing Senators. You can thank the Tea Party wackos for the move right.

 

Taxes: What people forget about Reagan - Sep. 8, 2010

Anybody who has seriously followed Republican politics knows that the party has steadily drifted to the left over the past 25 years. Anybody who thinks that today's Republican Party is growing more conservative was just not paying attention to the political environment of the 80s and 90s. Yes, the RINOS like Hatch and Lott have always been around but they did not have a stranglehold on the party then as they do today.

Who was it that bailed out the banks? Who bailed out the auto manufacturers? Who gave the the insurance companies business by forcing people to buy insurance? Obama and his minions were the major supporters, with a few RINOS tagging along on the 1st two.

 

Which wars in Asia, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan? The 1st two were to stop the spread of communism led by Democratic presidents. Iraq twice, once to free Kuwait and the second to rid the world of the threat WMDs, as many major sources believed the dictator of Iraq had and Afghanistan to go after Bin Laden, these happening under Republicans. All of them to defend freedom and to rid ourselves of dictators. Some of the wars did not produce the outcome we wanted, but that was due mostly to politics here at home. The military was not unleashed due to political correctness.

 

If you are not willing to fight to total and complete victory, stay home.

Thanks for the jingoistic claptrap. Define "total and complete victory," then list for the benefit of the board the number of armed conflicts in Asia since WWII where we've achieved "total and complete victory." Also tell me how the country of Vietnam would be different today had we "won" the Vietnam War.

:poop:

The St. Ronald Reagan of Republican mythology differs from the real Gipper, who wasn't quite as conservative as the Sean Hannitys and Mitch Rapps of the world would have us believe. Link to an informative article below.

 

Republican Party most certainly has moved to the right on many issues since the days of the four bipartisan Singing Senators. You can thank the Tea Party wackos for the move right.

do we really need to dive into childish name calling ?

What name did you find offensive? Don't tell me ... it's probably "bipartisan."

Thanks for the jingoistic claptrap. Define "total and complete victory," then list for the benefit of the board the number of armed conflicts in Asia since WWII where we've achieved "total and complete victory." Also tell me how the country of Vietnam would be different today had we "won" the Vietnam War.

 

I said we should not go unless we are to achieve total and complete victory, did not say we did. Defined it is complete and utter defeat of the enemy to wage war, we have removed our enemies from power and are in control of their country. Vietnam would be a democratic nation, just as we removed the dictators of Germany, Italy and Japan to allow them to be the democratic nations they are today.

 

South Korea is free, Kuwait is free, Afghanistan's leadership that hid Bin Laden is gone and hopefully they can hang on to the beginnings of the democracy they have. Iraq has been problematic, but if Obama had a plan, the situation could have a better outlook than it currently has.

The St. Ronald Reagan of Republican mythology differs from the real Gipper, who wasn't quite as conservative as the Sean Hannitys and Mitch Rapps of the world would have us believe. Link to an informative article below.

 

Republican Party most certainly has moved to the right on many issues since the days of the four bipartisan Singing Senators. You can thank the Tea Party wackos for the move right.

 

 

 

 

 

Maybe a reason that Ronald Reagan and even Bill Clinton are considered better presidents than Obama is that they were willing to listen and compromise. There was legislation that RR signed that I did not like, the tax increases and allowing for amnesty for illegal aliens, but I went with it.

 

Additional point, the amnesty he signed was a bipartisan bill. It was proclaimed by both sides to be a one time thing and security on the border was to be tightened up.