Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Friday, May 23, 2008
John Hawkins :: Townhall.com Columnist
We Need Reagan's Principles, Not His Agenda
by John Hawkins
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


"You cannot emulate any time in American history. You cannot try to premise your actions on Reagan. ‘He did this, so he'd do this.’ It's the fundamental principles that Reagan brought to the table that are applicable to our globalized generation and the challenges we face." -- House Republican Policy Committee Chairman, Thaddeus McCotter

Ronald Reagan was the greatest American President of the last 100 years, the second most important man of the 20th century behind Churchill, and one of the outstanding Presidents and world leaders of the modern era.

Why?

Reagan rebuilt our military, got our economy thriving again, re-energized the Republican Party, popularized conservative principles, was the one man most responsible for winning the Cold War, and conservatives always knew that he was one of us right down to his core.

That is why there was such an outpouring of grief when the Gipper died and why Ronald Reagan's name is still revered amongst conservatives -- and rightfully so.

That being said, many people in the conservative movement, because of our reverence for Reagan, have fallen into a trap, one that Reagan himself would have cautioned us to avoid.

That trap is coalescing around Reagan's agenda instead of Reagan's principles. That may seem to be a subtle point; however, it is a rather important distinction.

Principles are timeless. The free market almost always does a better job of handling things than big government. People are better able to spend their own money than the government is. As government power increases, the people's liberty retracts.

On the other hand, agendas can and often do change. We no longer need to try to defeat the Soviet Union. Restoring America's confidence in our military after the debacle in Vietnam isn't important any more. Defeating stagflation isn't exactly a hot topic either.

Reagan understood this instinctively. There were conservatives back in the thirties, but Reagan didn't run an election based on their issues. He had great respect for Barry Goldwater, the father of the modern conservative movement, but he didn't adopt Goldwater's agenda wholesale and if he had, he would have never become President of the United States.

That brings us to the dual problem we face with today's Republican Party.

The levers of power in today's GOP are in too many cases controlled by the same sort of wishy-washy Rockefeller Republicans who ran things before Reagan dragged the party to the Right. The party machinery goes all out to help squishes while often ignoring the needs of conservatives. It has also set up a primary system that makes it extremely difficult for conservatives to become the party’s presidential nominee -- and too often champions or at least turns a blind eye to issues like profligate spending and amnesty for illegal aliens that absolutely appall the conservatives who make up the heart of the Republican Party.

On the other side of the coin, because conservatives have become so disheartened by the performance of the Republican Party, we've become overly critical, de-motivated, and often reflexively demand a return to much of the agenda of the Reagan era.

This is problematic because, as a congressional aide I spoke with recently bemoaned,

"(N)one of the ideas we propose make...(conservatives) happy. If we invoke Reagan people say - RECYCLED IDEAS. If we move away from Reagan -- they say "where is Reagan?" It's like a no win situation."

There's a simple solution to this dilemma that is decimating the Republican Party and dragging the conservative movement down with it: that is applying Reagan's principles to the issues that the American people care about.

Some of the issues we need to deal with today are the same as they were when Reagan was in office. For example, big government and uninhibited government spending are no more of a boon to the country today than they were during the eighties. However, other issues just weren't as important 20 years ago as they are today. For example, health care and gay marriage weren't bringing people to the polls like they do in today's political environment. Then there are the other issues, like the income tax rate, crime, and welfare that are still issues, but don't have the "oomph" that they did back then.

If we can't get conservative Republicans into office, we can't implement our ideas and unfortunately, running on the remaining salient issues from Reagan's time in office isn't going to cut it, nor is alienating conservatives by moving the GOP to the middle of the road.

Instead, what we have to do is apply Reagan's principles to today's problems so that the GOP can bring conservatives back on board while simultaneously showing middle-of-the-road Americans that we do have real solutions to the problems that they're concerned about.

So, are we willing to secure the border and crack down on employers that knowingly hire illegals, which will cause most of the illegals that are here to self-deport? Are we willing to fight to give individual Americans, instead of businesses, health care tax breaks so that we can cover more Americans, at the same cost, and unleash the power of the market in health care? Are we willing to cut foreign aid and remove bases from nations we needed for the Cold War, but that are useless in the war on terror?

Those issues, and others that the GOP needs to get back in power are out there, just waiting for the Party to get behind them. America is a still a center-right country and conservatives, unhappy though they may be at the moment, are ready to open their wallets, put up signs, vote, and do what they have to do for their country if they're given a reason to do so. Having a Republican Party that's guided not by eighties nostalgia or unprincipled poll-driven politics, but Reagan's principles, would give them that reason.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
John Hawkins is a professional blogger who runs Right Wing News, Linkiest, and Viral Footage.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Applying the principle
I see. Mr. Hawkins, the best advice you can give to that congressional aide is that the people who are complaining about recycled Reagan ideas are not the same people who are complaining about moving away from Reagan. In fact, ideologically, they are virtual polar opposites. That means that he is going to have to take sides. He will have to make a choice between limited government and creeping government. Somebody is going to get peeved, at least for a little while. There is unfortunately no escaping that, because some people are irrational.

My advice is that his best bet for himself and for us is to choose limited government. This Reagan principle is not going to go away, but creeping government types are fly-by-nights when it comes to political loyalties. It is inherent to their nature and beliefs.

Maintaining a strong national defense and cutting back government creep ought to be enough to keep the GOP busy for a very long time without having to worry about finding "new" issues to rally the base. Instead of worrying about tweaking health care, worry about rolling back Medicare, Medicaid, and Workmen's Comp. Instead of worrying about private retirement accounts, make a plan to realistically eventually end SS. Instead of worrying about NCLB or improving education from the federal level, worry about rolling back education spending and getting rid of that federal department. This may not sound feasible, but welfare reform did not sound feasible either. With Bush cleared from the scene, GOP pols should feel free to return to such an agenda without having to worry about being or looking uncompassionate.

The key is to just take a look around and put a stop to or roll back that which goes against the limited government principle.

Where Hawkins misses

is that conservatives AREN'T trying to resurrect the issues of old; we are angered by the absolute lack of guiding principle we see exhibited by the GOP; the pandering to the Left and a mythical and non-existent "uncomitted" independant demographic; the out-of-control spending and arrogance, and other efforts to "out-Dem the Dems"; and the minimization of the conservative base that dedicates the time and financial resources that make possible any successes the GOP manages to achieve.

Most importantly, the manipulation of the primary process in a cynical effort to marginalize the voices of true conservatism, through open primaries and winner-take-all delegate awards.

The issues of an era are specific to that era; but the principles themselves are timeless, and are embodied in the Constitution.



BrianR
Right you are, as usual. I was surprised that the usually-spot-on Dawkins missed that.

We're talking third-party over at my "Blogatorium." There's been a lot of activity. We're evaluating the various third-party folks, and trying to sort the conservative wheat from the (insert prefix)-con chaff.

(Sorry for the plug but it's relevant to the thread and the article. Otherwise, I wouldn't have mentioned it.)

http://blogatorium.blogtownhall.com/

Real Conservatives

Real Conservative understand that conservative principles are delivered in the language of the time directed at the issues of our time.

Conservatism is precription and traditional and yet can be dynamically applied as issues evolve.


Boutte

As the news to day shows, there is much improvement in the contractor relationship in Military spending BUT Military spending is one of the necessary Enumerated powers.

Entitlement spending is NOT an Enumerated Power but one that is overtaking our primary Federal responsibilites.

Aides questioning Boehner’s leadership

Is this a major problem for the GOP?

Politico-House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) has put to rest questions about the future of NRCC Chairman Tom Cole (R-Okla.), but he hasn’t quelled concerns of Republican members, aides and lobbyists who say Boehner lacks the “killer instinct” necessary to fend off an electoral disaster in November.

Although Cole has presided over three straight special election losses in districts thought to be GOP strongholds, Boehner has refused to join rank-and-file members in calling on Cole to step down.

The two men met privately Friday and again on Monday; in between, Boehner appeared on ABC’s “This Week” and declared unequivocally that Cole will be “staying” as chairman of the party’s campaign committee through November.

read more

http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/aides-questioning- boehners-leadership

A RINO Congressional Aide?
Are conservative views of govmint Reagan's ideas or were they things that Reagan governed by? Which Congress person was the aide working for and perhaps that will answer some of my questions. What would Reagan have done with current day real problems that Jorge Bush doesn't have a clue, or doesn't want one. You are aware that Jorge is clueless now that his clueless brain is a punditer for FOX? Fox was better off before getting Rove who now has made the connection between Fox and the failed Bush. Aside from all that, what are today's planks in RINO McShamus' platform? Is amnesty okay today or is that tomorrow's thing?

It's not the Message.
In a very practical sense, the basis of conservative thinking is limited government and fiscal responsibility. You cannot, after all, empower the individual, encourage people to take personal responsibility, nor expand their individual freedoms, if government becomes the intermediary for every action they take. Big government means a system whereby decision making flows through and from the government to the individual. Government, not the individual, makes the choices and the decisions, and the individual is then left only to follow the rules and the dictates of government.

I quite frankly don't know if the GOP can any longer be a vehicle for conservative thought. At the core of the issue is the fact that at least 1/2 or more of the GOP's elected Senators and Representatives consistently ignore this principal. 100 GOP House members and 35 Senators voted for the Ag bill that increased spending by 44% - year over year. This same group voted for the Drug Entitlement Act, the Transportation Bill, the No Child Left Behind Act, and all the other bills that they vote on each year that has seen the government almost double its spending in the last 9 years.

In a practical sense, when a majority within the party no longer support conservative principals, the party itself is no longer conservative.

Recently, we've seen a blizzard of articles about how to "return" the GOP to a Conservative message. However, not one article suggested the obvious - which is that the GOP - to be a party of conservative principals, must first replace 1/2 or more of the current office-holders who are not conservatives.

In the end, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's a duck. And the GOP is not a conservative party any longer. It's a liberal duck.

It's not the message. It's the officeholders.

I don't see where there is
nostalgia that the GOP is promoting. The writer of this article did not give clear examples of how the GOP today is pursuing any part of Reagan's agenda. I don't understand the point that he is trying to make.

As for the quote ""(N)one of the ideas we propose make...(conservatives) happy. If we invoke Reagan people say - RECYCLED IDEAS."

The only “people” who say "Recycled ideas" when it comes to Reagan are liberals. That is the real problem with the GOP today. They are listening to liberals and the MSM but not listening to conservatives and they can't seem to distinguish between the two.

Redlac covers it well
I agree that the Republican Party is not being guided by Reagan Principals, problem is the Republicans haven't display any REAL PRINCIPALS in the last 8 years.

Looking at the ACTIONS of the Republican Congress one has to ask where they stand on:

Abortion

Deficit Spending

Taxes

Individual freedom AND responsibilities

Entitlement spending

Strong Military

Secure Borders

At best each of these touch stone issues should have a very clear cut answer, instead the party wobbles to both sides - often times dependant upon what day of the week or what headline last hit the news stands.

Instead of presenting themselves as an ALTERNATIVE to the democrat party, the Republican Party presents itself as "kind of like the democrats" only more boring about it.

When you place your faith ...
in politicians you will be disappointed most of the time. We need to have men and women of strong Christian principles represent us in Congress. Our founding fathers said that our Constitution would only work if the people in the nation were strongly Christian. Judging from the decay in Christian morals I would say we are in serious trouble as a nation based on the Constitution. The solution to the lack of principles in Congress begins in Church on our knees. When the people pray for good leaders we will get good leaders. Until we pray as a nation the great deceiver will be the one running the government.

Obviously
The presidents surroundings change. If he was around now, his agenda would not be to defeat the Soviet Union either! He would have the same old attitude though, where we need to go to war on terror and crush them. There would be no wishy washy war like what we are doing now. Iran would be shaking in their boots. So, in theory what you are saying is keep conservative but don't worry about Reagan's agenda on the Soviets. Seems rather obvious to me that conservatives are not worried about a candidate wanting to kill the Soviets. But we do want a candidate that will fight terror and keep their pride in our country much like Reagan did during his time.

Deacon
Strongly religious...not Christian. Though, Im sure that was their intent anyways. In my blog I have that exact quote, along with many other quotes.

I heard Rep Boaener, minority leader,
interviewed by Shaun Hannity. He lacked passion for leadership even though he talked about 4 main principles on which the republican party would rally. They were good principles but he lacked energy for them. He also conceded that most of the republicans were for earmarks inspite of knowing the public opposes them.

Republicans in order to prevent a massacure in the fall need passion and committment to the basic principles of Reaganism. They don't have them and without them, they will lose big time.

I wrote to the representative about my impression of his interview but don't expect results. Either a politician sees the wisdom and posses the need to convey it to the public or he doesn't. He and the party are coasting.

EXCELLENT POINT
Excellent point Mr. 'H'. Who are the people saying 'recycled ideas'? Wish the aide had identified them. Are they the Rockefeller Reps, special interest lobbyists, business people? I haven't been reading or hearing that among the conservative base.

CKHustler.. #14
Yes they said religious but what did they mean? I think their point of reference was Christian as they read the Bible and they had the Bible purchased for distribution. I don't think they considered Eastern religions or New Age thinking as religious.

Deacon
Totally agreed. I just wanted to correct you rather than a lib come on and make a big deal out of it. I believe they were all for Christianity to have a major role in our country and government, only they wanted people to have the option to not be Christian. It is not freedom from religion in the Constitution, but rather freedom of religion. They didn't want a national religion, they did not envision what our judges have deemed unconstitutional in the way of religion.

Reagan the Myth
I take issue with the authors premise that RR was the greatest president in 100 years. During his tenure we had the largest deficits in our history to the date. We had the Iran-Contra Scandal, We had a stupid little wag the door war in Grenada. We had the empowerment of Saddam Hussein.

Then there were all the American Lives that could have been saved had he acted more quickly to address HIV.

Yes her increased Military Spending but he also had us chasing the dumb idea of missle defense shield. It is unlikely thay Reagan himself would garner the support of Conservatives after all he broke the Central Tenant of modern Conservatism when he raised taxes.

Yes, the pressure he brought to bear on the USSR did hasten their demise, but the demise was inevitable. The one thing that is did do was legitimize what was before his time a fringe movement even within the Republican Party and his administration provided the first opportunity to many of todays mature Conservatives. As to Principles, he broke nearly all of those principles at one time or another in his career. So what is the point of having principles if you don't follow them.

He was a great communicators and he was an optomist and for that deserves credit. But the greatest in 100 years, I think not.


CKHustler... #18
Many thanks and BTW thanks for the articles on quotes on your blog.

:>)

JMO51 trots out the usual distortions...
... about Reagan.

I particularly like the comment about the inevitability of the USSRs demise. In 1980, you couldn't find one person in a thousand that believed they'd ever live to see the downfall of the Soviets.

If Reagan wasn't the best president in the last 100 years, it would be interesting to know who JMO51 thinks was...

Primus54
That is because the Hawks were hyping the strength of the USSR. After the collapse, it was apprent what bad shape they were in.

As to the greatest President:

Here is my list:

1. FDR (Hands down)
2. Truman
3. Johnson for Civil Rights
4. Nixon for his Foreign Policy
5. Kennedy for the Cubin Missle Crisis
6. Clinton for Welfare Reform and bring down the Reagan Deficits, and the greatest period of Economic Prosperty since the end of WWII.
7. Eisenhower - Very underrated leader.
8. George Bush 41 - Dessert Storm
9. Ronald Reagan
10. GWB - The worst President in 100 years.

RealCon
You are right. How interesting that the S & L scandal parallels in so many ways our current subprime crisis and in like fashion it will be the taxpayer that has to pick up the tab.

Many conservatives have a short term memory for the records of conservatives in office. I would anticipate that shortly after his departure from office, conservatives will begin the same effort to rename roads, High Schools, and other public works after him to rennovate his image and the radical ideology that he espoused.


JOIN THE STOP MCCAIN EXPRESS

.....MCFOOL AND THE GREEN GOONS ELEVATE POLAR BEARS ABOVE MAN ...

ANOTHER GUTLESS BUSH DECISION

.....Rather than stand up to the Green Goons, the Bush
Adm. capitulates, drops to a fetal position and sucks
its thumb ...

.....The good news is ....we will soon be rid of this
backstabbing wimp ...the bad news is that McFool
agrees with this decision ...

.....Sarah Paulin/James Inhofe for President/VP now
.... start a draft movement before either McFool or
Obama destroys the Country ...Conservatives should
write to their State delegates to change their votes
at the Convention ...it is not too late to save the
Country ...act now ...Draft Paulin and Inhofe ...

.....POLAR BEARS SHOULD BE EXTERMINATED .....COLOSSUS

JMO51

.....You are one sick Commie ...let me guess ...your favorite World Leaders are Josef Stalin and Mao ...am I close? .....COLOSSUS

When You Say Republicians are
the pandering to the Left party, you also discribe the conservative party who would rather sit home and do nothing or vote a write in that only guarantees the Liberals victory.

The conservatives have not come out and stood their grounds on anything, they talk themselves to death and thus goes their agenda.

They don't like McCain because he is not conservative enough for them, I do believe it would make no difference what McCain said or did, he could not satisfy a conservative. How about starting with our Constitution, he is the only candidate who believes in it, he believes in smaller government, he believes in no more pork increase on any bill. Is this not a start to achieve the conservatives goals and yet they say, "no way" will I get out and support this man. Well, don't whine to the rest of us if you are not willing to put your purse and mouth into action and begin the conservative movement in the right direction.

I am a proud conservative, however, I believe in a beginning to achieve the end. How about the rest of you conservatives?

Joy

JMO51
Thanks for your Top Ten... not let's see:

1. Democrat
2. Democrat
3. Democrat
4. Republican
5. Democrat
6. Democrat
7. Republican
8. Republican
9. Republican
10. Republican

I'm sensing a pattern here.

And you told me all I needed to know with your #1 an #10.

Reagan wasn't perfect
But he was a damned sight better than Carter, Ford, Nixon, either Bush, or Clinton! And John Hawkins is falling into the liberal mindset when he accuses conservatives of pursuing Reagan's agenda and not his principles. No one is screaming about fighting the USSR, or cobating stagflation...they are are all wanting to see the GOP adopt the principles of conservatism, and to see them advance that agenda. We conservatives want to see the GOP draw a line in the sand and stop the creep of Big Government into our lives, we want to see lower taxes for EVERYONE, we want to see America remain militarily strong, and we want to see the government stop meddling in economic matters that should be corrected by the market. Those are principles John, not agenda items. And until the GOP embraces those principles, they will be putting themselves at risk of becoming a permanent minority, because conservatives will not support an ultraliberal GOP.

FDR?
FDR best hands down? Those Roosevelt's caused more harm to this country than any other family, including those Kennedy's. All the social programs FDR put into place are dragging this country to its grave little by little. LBJ because of civil rights? What if I were to say it would happen anyways? I mean, thats your argument against Reagan right? LBJ also set enough programs into place to start digging the grave FDR is dragging us to.

I would like to know one thing that FDR did for this country. His programs didn't bring us out of the depression, the war did. He didn't lead the war like our generals did. He did very little in my eyes.

Is That So
Flagwaver, well look at what John McCain says about Big Government, Lower Taxes, Militarily Strong, stop government in economic matters, appoint Judges who follow the Constitution and you are talking about John McCains agenda. So why not vote for him, why not put out these Liberal Democrats in Congress and then keep up your agenda by making your Congress know what you want and will not stand for Liberalism. The Republican Party is just following what the people want and that is give me more, give me more, well they need to hear the public cry, give me less and let me do my job as a citizen and work for a living.

Write, call, and express your ideas and let it be known you are sick of the Liberal Congress and join other conservatives in all States and have the write, call etc. their Congress and then you could see a huge change in how the Republicans react to you. It can work if any conservative wants to join and work together.

Look at the farm bill, full of pork, why? because this Liberal Congress which includes some Republicans are wanting to vote on what they think their constituants back home want, how do they know, they don't, everyone sits quiet and complains but does nothing about it. Go to http://www.NumbersUSA.com and see what can be accomplished when people get involved directly with their Congressmen/women. See how they backed down when the fax's and calls came in.

Joy

Joy
Conservatives will not back McCain because he says one thing and does another. Lower taxes? yet he voted against the Bush tax cuts. Constitution? Feingold anyone? Immigration reform?

We are afraid he will stab us in the back, which I believe he will.

What the conservatives are doing is getting out all the republicans that are not conservative. Jimmy Carter produced the Ronald Reagan years. Obama and co could produce a conservative uprising even larger.

Joy
You mention sending a message to our congressmen. You would think that voting out all of their RINO friends would be enough of a message. But no, they go and vote for the farm bill. Last election the conservatives sent their message by losing many seats in congress. The republicans will not listen. Even the immigration reform was narrowly stopped after like 70% of the total voters were against it, and Bush was even going to sign it if congress passed it. Shouldn't that tell you that the Reps are into buying votes all the same as democrats? The conservatives are sending a message and a new party will rise up after this. After the American people get tired of taxes and lowering their use of energy, among other things.

JMO & "realcon" are history revisionists

First of all, though the budget did increase under Reagan, budgets are passed by Congress, and Reagan fought the budget increases (other than military) tooth and nail, against a Congress in control of the Dems throughout his administration. Had he not fought them so hard, the budgets would have been even worse. The President does NOT have line-item veto powers.

As to oil shale, not only did Carter NOT initiate any research into that resource's development, it was under the Carter administration that the environmental extremists filed suit to halt any development of the oil shale deposits, and the Carter administration refused to fight back.

As to the 1986 amnesty, Reagan signed that into law predicated on the employer-sanctions aspect, which ended up never being enforced. He later publicly rued that legislation as the worst mistake of his Presidency; he was basically conned.

It seems the only people on this thread living up to Hawkins's talk about actually *reliving* the Reagan administration are the liberals.

Certainly not the conservatives.

for TeeHall
TeeHall writes: "What would Reagan have done with current day real problems that Jorge Bush doesn't have a clue, or doesn't want one. "

I can answer that right now:

Remembering who some of Reagan's advisers were, it's doubtful that Reagan would ever have fought the Iraq War. He would have used massive force in Afghanistan and made sure that Osama didn't escape.

But even if he had decided to go after Saddam,
Ronald Reagan would NEVER have invaded Iraq with only 140,000 troops. Starting on the day after 9-11, he would have built the mightiest army the world had seen since World War II. He would also have told Syria that if they continue to allow jihadists across the border into Iraq, we would raze Damascus in retaliation. And the Iraq war would have been over in less than a year, and Iraq would be a stable society right now.

for JMO51
JMO51 writes: "Yes, the pressure he brought to bear on the USSR did hasten their demise, but the demise was inevitable. "

NO ONE at the time, during the Cold War, claimed that the demise of the USSR was "inevitable."

Except Ronald Reagan.

Go ahead, find me some LIBERALS or some DEMOCRATS who said, BACK THEN, that the USSR's demise was "inevitable." Find even ONE.

Did you live through that era? I did. Liberals like McGovern and Galbraith were saying that the USSR was NEVER going to collapse, that its economy was doing just fine, and that the U.S. had to find a way to live with them indefinitely. Galbraith said he went to the USSR and was very impressed by how happy their consumers were!

It was REAGAN who said that the USSR was headed for the "ash heap of history." And at the time, liberals got hysterical: Reagan is "provoking" the Soviets, oh dear, oh my. He just insulted them, oh dear, oh my. They might get angry, oh dear, oh my. And then they will nuke us, oh dear, oh my.


SteveL
That is exactly what Reagan would have done after 9-11. We would be out of Iraq and Israel would now have Egypt and Iraq on their side with Iran scared to death of us.

Right, SteveL

I well remember how shocked everyone was when the USSR DID actually collapse!


Baseballdoc
Iwent to your site, but couldn't get it to open for me. Part of it came up, but not yur article. Don't know if it's trouble on your site, or if it's my new computer. We have been having some trouble with getting everything to work up to snuff. Don't know if it's Windows problems, or computer illiteracy. Probably the latter.
I'll try the site again later.
Like your idea for president. Inhofe is my Senator. Gotta' love that man!!

Best and Worst Presidents
Against my better judgment, and following JMO51's idiotic lead, I'm going to present MY list of the best and worst US Presidents.

Only unlike JMO51, I'm going to confine myself to the Presidents I have FIRSTHAND awareness of (realizing, of course, that I'll be dating myself by doing this). Unlike JMO51, I'm not arrogant enough to think that I can judge any President to be the "worst ever" (as he did to President Bush the Younger).

I do, nevertheless, feel qualified to judge the best and worst Presidents of my lifetime. So here goes:

1. Ronald W. Reagan (this one's a no-brainer).
2. George H.W. Bush
3. George W. Bush (certainly not perfect, but better than the rest of the lot.)
4. Richard M. Nixon
5. Gerald R. Ford
6 (tie) William J. (alias "Bubba") Clinton
6 (tie) James E. (alias "Jimmy") Carter, Jr.

If I were the least bit inclined to identify ANY President as the "worst ever", it would be Carter. But again, there might have been a worse one back before my time. (But I don't see how!)

Wrong Paul NOT the "Real Deal"
Sorry, Vito, but Wrong Paul was definitely NOT the "real deal" when it came to conservative principles.

I'll concede that he had some excellent ideas on fiscal policy and cutting the size of government.

But his good ideas were more than offset by his HORRIBLE ideas on defense and foreign policy (cutting and running in Iraq, et. al).

In an age where America is engaged in a struggle for her very life with Islamofascist crackpots who are hell-for-leather bent on destroying America, killing Americans wherever they may be, and imposing their sixth-century worldview on the world through violence and terror, Wrong Paul's ideological mix is absolutely unacceptable to any rational person who calls himself a patriotic American.

Dodger Hawk NeoCon
Ron Paul's foreign policy is straight out of the finest traditions of the Republican Party and old school conservatism. The GOP used to be the anti-war party. As recently as 1998 the vast majority of Republicans in the House and Senate opposed Clinton's Kosovo war. Of course on the the few who did support it is McCain. Eisenhower was elected to end the Korean war. Nixon the Vietnam war. Democrats used to label Republicans as being soft on communism because they were anti war. My how times have change. As Alexander Haig said on CNN, the NeoCons have hijacked the Republican party and led us into this disaster in Iraq.

Ron Paul's finest debate moment

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6T9uBo0LBN4&feature=related

Wrong Paul is the "Disaster", not Iraq
JimBob:

Anybody who touts Wrong Paul's foreign policy as being "in the finest traditions of the Republican Party" is hopelessly caught in a time warp.

This isn't the 1930s, JimBob. Advancements in communications and transportation technology have effectively conquered the ocean barriers that once separated America from Europe and Asia.

Isolationism--which is Wrong Paul's "foreign policy" in a nutshell--is no longer a realistic foreign policy option. Even the "old school" Republicans whose memory you so reverently invoke acknowledged this fact after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor.

Ronald Reagan would never have espoused Wrong Paul's foreign policy views. The proof is in his record as President.

Wrong Paul would have been a good Presidential candidate in 1808. But not in 2008.

Sorry, JimBob.

Wrong Paul, Part III
Furthermore, JimBob, by way of clarification, the lion's share of Congressional Republicans who opposed Clinton's intervention in Kosovo did so for three reasons. And none of them had anything to do with "neocons" (a nebulous neologism if ever there was one), "non-interventionism" or what you arrogantly call "the finest traditions of the Republican Party".

Reason #1: While Slobodan Milosevic was a tyrant and a shameless violator of human rights, his regime did not attack the United States, nor did it pose even the remotest of threats to the United States.

Reason #2: There were no vital American interests at stake in Kosovo.

Reason #3: Most Republicans saw Clinton's saber-rattling in the Balkans for what it really was--a thinly-veiled attempt to divert public attention away from his scandalous behavior, malfeasance and criminal activities here at home, for which he was facing imminent impeachment and possible removal from office (and rightly so).

Try as you might, JimBob, you can't make any of these arguments against our incursion into Iraq.

So What HAppened?
The demise of the Reagan "mentality" was the rise of the Chistian Right takeover of the Republican PArty. Real issues, such as budget deficits (a fake issue for conservatives to be sure), were replaced by handwringing and bleating about "morality" accompanied by a perfect willingness to expand government power to enforce that "morality."

Now that a majority of Americans have recognized this (voter identification with Democrats has never been higher, with Republicans, never lower) Republicans are at a loss.

This, I think, is a really good thing.

National Interest.
What national interest did we have in Iraq?? None zero zilch. And I didn't say Clinton's Kosovo war had anything to do with NeoCons. Republicans were behaving like well old school Republicans. Hell World War 2 hero Dwight Eisehnower in his farewell address warned the country about the military industrial complex. I don't think anyone can accuse Ike of being a softy. The fact of the matter is, Republicans always understood war only grows government. Wars should only be fought in self defense. Iraq hadn't attacked the United States, it posed no threat to the United States. It was a poor 3rd rate country that just happened to by our ally back in the 80s during the Iran Iraq war.

"Conservatism once was an honorable term, associated with "decentralism, liberty, economy in government, religious faith, family-centeredness, parochialism, smallness," notes Kauffman. But he thunders: "The cockeyed militarism of the Bush administration, and the historical ignorance and cowardice of the subsidized Right that has cheered him on, have poisoned the word conservative. For years, if not wars, to come." Today, he complains, the word conservative "reeks of manslaughter and militarism." "

http://www.antiwar.com/bandow/?articleid=12886

JimBob
You really need to research all the things that went on prior to us invading Iraq. There is so much information you left out its amazing you came here to post that.

What Happened?
Jack:

You're wrong, you're wrong, you're ABSOLUTELY WRONG!

It's because the GOP has taken the "Christian Right" (your pejorative term, not mine) for granted and failed to adequately address their concerns that Republicans are having problems right now. The Republicans haven't really given social conservatives a reason to back them. (They haven't given fiscal conservatives any reason to back them, either.)

And as for "voter identification with Democreeps" being "never higher", I would debate that assertion, given the fact that the current DEMOCREEP-CONTROLLED Congress has the lowest approval ratings of ANY CONGRESS IN HISTORY.

The approval ratings for the current DEMOCREEP-CONTROLLED Congress make President Bush--for all his real and alleged faults--look wildly popular by comparison! Small wonder, with the price of fuel skyrocketing thanks to short-sighted DEMOCREEP CONGRESSIONAL inaction on increasing domestic energy production, among the other "great accomplishments" Grimy Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have acheived.

I'll concede that Republicans haven't given anybody a reason to vote for them. But the Democreeps have given anyone with a functioning brain ample reason to vote AGAINST them.

DodgerHawk
Your last bit with Republicans not giving us a reason to back them is spot on.

The Christian right has lost faith in republicans, the fiscal right has lost faith in the republicans. The republicans thought they would gain voters by moving left, boy were they wrong and they are paying for it now. Im waiting for the backlash to either pull them right or destroy them altogether while a conservative party emerges.

The American people are conservative, just look at our most liberal state. Even CA voted against Gay marriage! Yet our government went against the will of the people yet again. Once a conservative party gains momentum and comes into play it will be good night for the dems.

Research Iraq
Hilarious. What needs to be researched. Iraq had no WMDs, it was no threat to the United States. The Iraq war was cooked up by the NeoCons in the mid 90s. Google Bill Kristol's outfit, "The Project for a New American Century". Kristol since 1995 had been pushing for an Iraq war. Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith etc etc. The Likudniks.

Re: National Interest
Once again, JimBob, you got it all wrong.

We had many sound, if not compelling, reasons, to launch preemptive military actions against Iraq.

First, Iraq had been openly hostile to the United States for several years. American pilots patrolling the no-fly zones in and around Iraq can testify to being shot at by Iraqi military during the years following the Gulf War.

Second, the most reliable intelligence information available indicated that Saddam Hussein was violating the terms of the treaty that ended the Gulf War--and seventeen UN resolutions--by continuing to develop weapons of mass devastation and the means to deliver them.

The fact that, to date, we haven't found any such weapons in Iraq doesn't render that intelligence "faulty", nor does it make President Bush a "liar".

Third, while it's true that Iraq had no direct role in the 9-11 attacks--and for the record, neither President Bush nor anyone in his Administration has ever claimed that they did--there was ample evidence to suggest that Saddam Hussein's regime was attempting to forge an alliance with al Qaeda--the organization that ORCHESTRATED the attacks--and planned to offer them a base of operations in their country once we expelled them from Afghanistan.

President Bush would have been CRIMINALLY FOOLISH to sit by and allow Iraq and al Qaeda to forge such an alliance.

JimBob
Obviously missing all the information about Saddam funding and supporting the very terrorists that attacked us. Proof of it is all over bud. Our UN inspectors weren't able to go into certain buildings...gee, i wonder why. You can say they didn't have WMD's all you want but you know thats not true. We found empty canisters and nuclear plants. Yea, no WMD's there! haha

As I said, do your research before you look a moron.

Then John McCain is Not The Anawer!
John McCain cannot become the next president of the United States!

I am not a Libertarian but Bob Barr has done a service for the United States by running for president! Conservatives now can vote for a “truer conservative,” than McCain.
What has happened to the Republican Party? Even Newt has gone to the dark side with the global warming hoax!

No doubt, that voting for Bob Barr will give Obama the White House. Nevertheless, if democrat/socialist policies are going to be promoted then let someone that has democrat/socialist title be responsible for the consequences!

McCain is counting on conservatives to vote for him because he believes that we will not want to see the democrat in the White House. However, if conservatives vote for him it will set the Reagan Revolution back another generation. Can those of us that claim to love the great conservative Ronald Reagan and, what he did for us, violate our consciences by voting for liberal McCain? Conservatives must not only defeat the left wing we must defeat the Nixon/Rockefeller wing of the Republican Party! Let these elitist do what Jay Rockefeller did and join the other elitists that comprise the democrat party!

McCain-Kennedy, McCain-Feingold, McCain-Leiberman. Leadership like this the country can do without. Carbon taxes, constitutional rights for Gitmo detainees and amnesty for illegal aliens await us no matter who wins!

Therefore, we must prepare for the pain of another Jimmy Cater, so that the Reagan Revolution will again rise out of the wilderness and bring pride in, and common sense to the United States of America!

May God Help the United States of America!

Bob Edmunson
Vancouver, Wa

DodgerHawk
Have it your way. I sas trying to explain why the coalition fell apart. You are still in the middle of wailing about it. The Reagan era was about practicality, at least under the surface. Tax cuts were a practical measure. Military strength was a practical measure. Iran Contra (Imagine Reagan partnering with the same Iranians you guys want to exterminate) was a practical plan.

But go ahead. As I said, I am delighted your little tea party ended up a disaster. I was just trying to explain why it happened.

And just to help you grasp reality, becuase I know that's hard for you. I was not talkign about approval ratings for anyone. I was talkign about party identification research that shows 45% of Americans identify with the Democrat PArty and only 30% with Republicans. The gap has never been that large and it promises to be disastrous in future elections. At least for you.

As I said, feel free to ignore all this. I hope you do.

Jack
You should also look at the issue voting tendencies of the people. Check any issues that were directly voted on and you will see people are more conservative. The dems have almost in a way brainwashed people into voting for them. Promising everything, then delivering nothing. It will only last so long.

The Christian Right is not the reason the party is the way it is now.

Re: Reply #54
"No doubt, that voting for Bob Barr will give Obama the White House. Nevertheless, if democrat/socialist policies are going to be promoted then let someone that has democrat/socialist title be responsible for the consequences!"

Yes, but just remember who would have to SUFFER those "consequences", Bob. It wouldn't be B. Hussein Ublahma or his leftist Democreep cronies--except perhaps at the ballot box in 2012 (by which time, the damage to our nation might be too extensive to repair).

No, it will be people like you, like me, and like a lot of other good, decent, hard-working Americans.

Do you really want something like that on your conscience? I don't!

The most prudent course of action I see for conservatives is to exert some force at the Convention. No, not the fanciful appeal to dump McCain in favor of some other candidate; that would be great, but it isn't going to happen. Rather, force McCain to accept the most conservative candidate available as his running mate, and then support the GOP ticket in November--yes, the McCain/Whoever team, but especially the GOP candidates for Senate and Congress.

Even if we don't take back Congress, we would have the off-year elections in 2010 to make whatever adjustments might be necessary there.

Then in 2012, we can heave "President" McCain overboard like the human sandbag he is and run his Vice President for the top spot.

From my seat, that's the best option we have.

CkHustlerHawkDodger
You can have your own opinion, but you can't have your own facts.

False Claim 1) American pilots patrolling the no-fly zones in and around Iraq can testify to being shot at by Iraqi military during the years following the Gulf War.

Truth. Not really, they can't. They can testify only that they were painted by radar. We do know however that British and America planes violated Iraqi airspace in an effort to draw Iraqi fire. Even had they been fired on, it wouldn't have mattered. Their capability was archaic compared to our defense mechanisms.

False Claim Two. the most reliable intelligence information available indicated that Saddam Hussein was... by continuing to develop weapons of mass devastation and the means to deliver them.

The TRUTH. The most reliable intelligence information was provided by Hans Blix and his inspectors who were on teh ground in Iraq, had indicated that they had found no evidence of WMD's and had said theycould definitively answer teh question in as little as 6 weeks. This evidence is the most reliable because it was A) from neutral party, B)based on on hte ground inforamtion, and C) turned out to be right.

False Claim Three: "there was ample evidence to suggest that Saddam Hussein's regime was attempting to forge an alliance with al Qaeda"

The Truth. There is in fact NO EVIDENCE of this at all. The official government report on the issue absolutely contradicts this claim, indicating there was no evidence of any meaningful relationship.










More False Claims
False Claim Four: "Obviously missing all the information about Saddam funding and supporting the very terrorists that attacked us. Proof of it is all over bud."

The TRUTH: This is actually two lies in one. Saddam did not support Al Quaeda. Sadam's support was almost entirely confined to factions in the ISraeli-Palestinian conflict. The secodn lie is that there is ample support for the first lie.

False Claim Five: "Our UN inspectors weren't able to go into certain buildings"

The Truth: Another twofer. They were not OUR inspectors. And they officially stated that they were getting all the cooperation they needed.

False Claim 6: "We found empty canisters and nuclear plants."

The Truth: The cannisters were "empty"! Get it? And we did NOT find nuclear plants.

Your commitment to innacuaracy is another one of those reasons the conservative community is now wildly unpopular with Americans.

Jack
Do more research then, because the evidence is there. What YOU are doing is taking your opinion and warping the facts to fit it. Good try.

"Own Facts"?
"You can have your own opinion, but you can't have your own facts."

Apparently, this rule doesn't apply to you, does it, Jack?

CKHustler and Issues Voting
You are missing the forest for the trees.

It is true that when hot button issues arise, right wingers have been able to get enougth of thier followers into a lather to vote on gay marrriage. But that does not translate into broad electoral appeal.

For example, the last three special elections, all in firmly held Republican seats, have all gone Democrat. The demographics are against you in every way. The younger the polling bloc the less likely they are to be responsive to God, guns, and gay issues. They don't vote yet, but they will.

The fact is that the overweening self righteousness and hypocrisy of the right wing has alientated a lot of voters. The result is a split between the religious right and the fiscal right.


Jack
Republican losing seats just proves people are more conservative. They held the seats when they were more conservative and lost them while moving left.

You are missing lots of points here. There isn't a split between the religious right and fiscal right. The republican split from both of them. This is where your argument stems from and it is way off the mark. As a religious right and fiscal right I can say that many religious right voters are also fiscally right as well. It seems since you are a liberal you think you know our problems when clearly you have no idea.

And, the reason I brought up issues. Issues are not, NOT drummed up like politicians are. People half the time do not know what they are voting for when they vote for a person. Democrats have a very politically uneducated base that don't know over half of what Obama wants to do. Issues though, they know what they are voting for and they vote conservative.

CK Hustler
You make claims that are contradicted by the Dulfer Report, the military record, the British government, the UN inspectors, and the President.

And I am spinnings?

How about you actually provide some evidence, or even a name that can be checked.

Liek I said, there is a reason why voters are running from Republicans, and that reason is people like you.

BASEBALL DOC...HOW?
IS MAC gonna get dumped? you know the party is not going to embarrass it self and let him get dumped!Even tho' we may be embarrassed..they are not going to let the general conservatives
throw water on their lit cake!
You know who I like...and I still think .....
something very strange is going to happen and Mitt will get the chance to prove himself to the
conservatives..and he will, and down the road he will get the job done similar to Reagan!
Mc Cain is no reagan,period!
As much as I liked Reagan(big time!) he did some things that might make it hard to get nominated today!???
elvis

Diversions.
As usual, the audience is focusing on issues rather than the big picture which was Reagan's strength. This article is about principles and not issues! Discussing them looks like campaign wars in the public. Only two points need addressing: "Deacon" says we all simply must pray for good leaders. Hogwash-- we must act. The Lord helps those who (at least try) help themselves. And I don't choose to be "led" anywhere. "Lisa" says that military spending is an enumerated power but that is not exactly true. The ONLY military that is constitutionally allowed and mandated is that of a permanent navy, obviously designed to provide for the defense of our coasts from foreign invasion. An army can only be supported for up to two years. Read the Constitution if you want to know what the founders intended. A little study via the convention notes, The Federalists Papers, and the Articles of Confederation would go a long way in assisting one to truly understand the beauty of the Constitution. While you are at it visit newswithviews. com and read what "Joe American" has to say about getting lost in the issues (and away from the Reagan principles).

Here
I don't have time to read the whole article or much time to look around now, but here is one on short notice.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/969032/posts

CKHustler
I'm sorry, but even President is on the record saying that Saddam had nothing to to with the terrorists that attacked us on 9/11. Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard has been pushing that line, but or on CIA and NSA have debunked it.

Primus54
I guess you think GWB was the best and FDR was the worse.

Roosevelt
Social Security, FDIC, the SEC. That is just for starters. As to Johnson, yes Civil Rights would have happened eventually. But it was Johnson's direct actions that hastened the process. There is no evidence that anything that Reagan Specifically did to bring down the Great Bear.

Reagan also never said he thought the USSR would fall. He simply used the USSR was the justification for the Military Build up. But I would rather talk about Iran-Contra. Just a few years earlier these thugs capture our citizens and Reagan makes an illegal back door deal to sell these same people arms. Then he denys knowing about it. Had this been done by a Dem Conservatives would have called it treason.

Duh!
I see people takling about the war in Iraq like it is changable. The only thing that is changable is what to do from here foreward. Reagan would simply say the way to end it is "we win, they lose". simple and to the point!
The reason Regan was so popular, and still is today is that he beleived in freedom to his core, and doing the right thing, based on his faith. People love America, and so did Reagan, with no apologies for anything, as this is the greatest country ever established!
Although Regan did defeat the Soviet Union, the evil persists today in the form of Maxine Waters Barak Obama, and Vladimir Putin among others. We must defeat this menace and rid the Democrat and Republican parties, as well as academia of this evil theology, or it will swallow us up!

DodgerHawk
By the way the President with the worst approval rating ever recorded is GWB, so my arrogance must be shared by the majority of Americans.

Conservatives spent a lot of time and effort to glorify the standard bearer of their movement. But on close examination his administration contrary to his image was a best only fair. The this is Iran Contra and I would remind you that is that same Iran that took our hostages and he secretly sold then arms then denied it. That alone should have knocked him down more than few pegs.

Need principles!
Strongly agree the Republican Party needs to put forth some real principles if it wants to continue. The party was founded on the ideas of economic improvement through empowering the individual (free soil / free labor / free men). Once you establish that principle, you can put forth specific policies and show how they will achieve the principle. Unfortunately, now we see things such as "reduce taxes" as ends in themselves, rather than a way to achieve a true end. By default, we are allowing Democrats to put forth the principle of economic improvement through government empowerment. Once that principle becomes entrenched Republicans will only be fighting over whose earmarks get included in the next farm bill.

Of course, since the Republican party's founding foreign affairs has become more important, and principles WRT other nations/peoples need to be added to the basic one of economics.

BRIANR # 34 - TEXAS & THE BARNETT SHALE

.....While the Eco-Nuts and Green-Goon Commies have tied up drilling shale in the courts in other parts of the Country ...here in Texas, Chesapeake Energy is drilling a new well every 15 hours ...

.....It is called the Barnett Shale and is the second largest natural gas reserve in the Country if not the World ...most of it is under Ft Worth and urban drilling is a reality ...wells are in backyards ...on DFW Airport, on municipal property and they are planning to put one on the campus of TCU ...

.....This economic boom is second only to Spindle Top in Texas History ...it pumps 10.5 billion dollars a year into the local economy dwarfing the income that the new Cowboys football stadium will generate ...plus hundreds of thousands of new jobs have been created ...

.....The City of Ft Worth in partnership with Chesapeake holds job fairs to try to fill the thousands of new job openings ...

.....Thank God that Texans have more sense than the ninnys in Congress and thank God that I live here ...I wasn't born in Texas but I got here as quick as I could .....COLOSSUS

Sorry, "Realcon"

But your last post doesn't meet intellectual rigor of any standards.

It sounds like you were responding to my post, so that's why I address this to you.

What I stated in my earlier comment were simply the facts. I was old enough to be a very active, aware and involved participant during Reagan's era, and was in fact a member of the board of my area GOP committee.

Your first rebuttal to my comment is on the issue of the 1986 amnesty, and though the few facts you stated were technically correct as to Reagan's warnings from his advisors, he did proceed with signing the bill into law, and as I stated he later publicly regretted it as the biggest mistake of his administration. He all but admitted he was sandbagged by Congress.

As to Carter and oil shale, again you're trying to revise history. What I stated was absolutely true... I was there at the time, and observed all the machinations first hand. It sounds to me like you're not old enough to remember firsthand what went on. I don't care how many people you try to quote who have probably ALSO written revisionist history; I read the newspapers every single day.

Nothing matches first-hand experience.

As to Carter's degree in nuclear engineering: what does THAT have to do with the price of tea in China?

(ANOTHER saying you're probably not old enough to remember)

Let me say one other thing to you. My daughter graduates college in December, and throughout her educational career, from about junior HS on, I have been ASTOUNDED by some of the things presented to kids these days as "facts" which absolutely fly in the face of what REALLY happened.




Bballdoc.....

Any way you can inject that common sense into the rest of the country?


If you can, please start HERE, in Leftifornia.


ELVIS #65

.....Theoretically it could happen but I know that it won't ...we are stuck with McCain and will have to weather the oncoming storm and regroup for 2012 ...it is nice to indulge in fantasy sometimes to escape the harsh reality ...and who knows what might happen between now and the Convention ...maybe some snoopy reporter might uncover a secret pact that McCain signed with Ho Chi Minh .....COLOSSUS

Same O - Same O
story from conservatives, vote them out and then wait until the next election and get something done. Well it has not worked and you need another more constructive plan.

By 2010 it could be to late to change the course, we could be in a much larger war then we are now and then what is the conservative plan?

If you vote in or allow a vote in for a Democratic President, remember, a Congress that is also Liberal will win everytime and when a bill is passed, it takes YEARS to clean up, sometimes never.

Look at our tax code, it has needed cleaned up for years and nothing done.

Make your voice heard this year, do it right and make sure you vote someone in who may be only partical liberal, yet believes in the Constitution and our military strength.

I say, we the people made them Liberal, both the Republicans and the Democrats. We accepted anything they wanted to do and only cried in our beer or milk, but never did a march on Washington, or stood up at a political meeting and voiced anything. Don't tell me 2010 will be different, this has gone on long enough and each year we are left holding the bag. Come on you Conservatives THINK for a change on actions and don't be afraid of the unknown.

If Bush signed everything this Liberal Congress sent him, we would be in much deeper s---, it would never get cleaned up.

Conservatives had better think of the long term consequences of a Liberal President and a Liberal Congress.

I still say, "don't whine unless you can give me a better answer then waiting until 2010 to hopefully get action" The time is NOW.

Joy

ReaganISM is Timeless
I'm not clear on where Hawkins is going w/ this, but at least it's not yet another RINOgram.

I'm a bit perplexed re who still thinks the USSR is the enemy to be defeated?

(SDI has got to be the most successful weapon ever. Never fired, never fully deployed, never completed, hardly even constructed, just a few questionable demonstration tests, & a lot of R&D & $$$. Yet the mere commitment to develop it provided the shove that toppled the already-rotten state that was the greatest Evil Empire, by any measure, in human history!)

It is true that while the specific issues with which Reagan dealt have passed & morphed, the basic principles associated with his administration are timeless & come straight from the founders & the philosophies underlying the Constitution. It is founded on the worth, dignity, rights, & freedom of the individual, which therefore stipulates among other things small minimal restrained government.

What we face today is not only a somewhat different set of challenges, but a concerted deliberate effort - dare I say, PLOT - to marginalize and squelch conservatism itself, by those it threatens: career political hacks, totalitarian 1-worlders, tinpot dictators, and 2-legged parasites generally.

From some of those come this theory that Reaganism is somehow obsolete, that some sort of "new" big-gov "conservatism" must supplant it, that some mysterious population of "moderates" must be appeased with (??!) extreme leftist policies like energy rationing, open borders, & supression of campaign speech.

Sorry, Joy

Actually, the time is not "now", it was quite a while ago. The problem is that the GOP continually ignored us.

So.... now they have a revolt on their hands, because the one way the "time is now" is for the GOP to reject McRINO.

In THAT case, I'll agree with you.

PS, Joy


To a real conservative, the choice you've posed is analogized thusly"

Would you rather be hanged, or shot at the stake?


Who really cares all that much, as the end result is the same and both are relatively quick?


baseball doc..again also brian r.
mc cain signed a what with who..??HA HA HA!
I LOVE MOST OF YOUR COMMENTS!! And if iam not mistaken..you once said you would draw the
line in the sand for MITT! I can live with that.
Michael Reagan said somthing very interesting
last night he said"I think it would be a waste of knowledge to have Mitt for vice pres.there will be a future for him !
So a touch of fantasy helps relieve from real
life? Maybe that's why DISNEY has done so well?
HEY..DO YOU OR BRIAN R KNOW WHAT HAPPENED TO OUR OL PAL..ROBT.!? HA HA HA(NOT MISSING HIM.)
elvis

Elvis! (think "NORM!" on Cheers)


Where ya been?

Yeah, Robert hit the TH S-List ... Big Time. He's been banned. His posts are removed daily, though he seems to use an IRQ scrambler to try to work around the ban. So... his posts -- when he does write something -- show up for a while, but then quickly disappear back into the ether.



And yeah, King, Mitt was the "line in the sand".


Dude! I LOVED "In The Ghetto"! Where ya cribbin'? Let me get one quick pic! I could use the $$$$ from The Enquirer!




Close but not quite, John . . .
or maybe I missed your point. What I see is a bunch of spineless RINO's that want to talk about Reagan and/or Conservatism but do what will "get" them votes (or so they think) by hedging to the middle. At least the leaders on the other side say what they mean sometimes then say they didn't say it. That's consistent, at least.

No, our RNC leadership--if in fact there is such a thing--is content with assuring conservative America that their plan is to tell us what they should do ala Contract For America-style, elicit our vote and , hey, you voted me in so now I'll do what I want.

Hey, RINO dopes, you lost and are still losing ground not because of what you say or promise, but because every 2, 4, 6 or 8 years is the only time you SAY it and then you Refuse to DO it. Same result if we voted DNC!

CONS DESPISE GOP's Hypocrisy
and that is EXACTLY what we have seen for FAR too long. We have grown weary from the abject incompetence and patently absurd behavior of so many so-called "Conservatives". Even the ol' standby shills in so-called "Conservative Talk Radio" by their continuous support for McCain belie the fact that none of them stand for the conservative principles they have tirelessly claimed to support for years and continue to claim to support, as if we have no mental faculties to grasp their OBVIOUS, glaring hypocrisy! Conservative talk radio has pointed out time and time again to the GOP that if they refuse to follow their principles, they can't possibly win elections, which is true, but what does the GOP do? It ignores wisdom and placates the Rockefeller Republicans, who are just nothing more than socially Liberal, no-tax, Yankee Democrats. More and more, when I listen to talk radio, it's like listening to the same political whores in DC who happen to now have their own media outlet. These people are no more Conservative than my own damn dog.

CONS DESPISE GOP's Stupidity
The GOP has revealed itself time and time again to be politically out to lunch. They STUPIDLY tried hanging Clinton with the Monica Lewinsky perjury mess when it would have been far more wiser to try hanging Clinton for TREASON with the Chinagate Scandal.
A dog can only get kicked around so long until eventually it will bite back with everything it has in its mouth. That's where TRUE Conservatives are today. We've been disowned by the GOP, kicked out on the street, and abandoned. Now, the SOB's like Bush and McCain are kicking us around, too, calling us "vigilantes" and mocking us for despising Illegal Immigration. We know where we're not wanted. We will come back with 3rd party coalition government; we will rise like the Phoenix from the ashes of the GOP, which surely is on its deathbed, having refused our medical treatment for far too long. The GOP had 12 years to do something and squandered every opportunity. It has become very clear o me that they were no different than the DEMS; they just wanted to satisfy their wanton lust for power - WE THE PEOPLE be damned!

"LL in LA"......precisely!

It's the same tactic used so well by the Real Democrats in their treatment of Blacks and the NAACP.

Once every four years, roll them out, treat them to a bunch of rhetoric by their "leaders" like Sharpton and Jackson, get a lot of "rah-rah" going, make a bunch of hollow promises, pay lip service to the ideals and philosophy, get their contribution money and votes, then promptly after the election roll them back into the closet, to be ignored for four more years.

Or, to use a metaphor, treat them like mushrooms: keep them in the dark and periodically shovel BS over them.

Well, I simply refuse to be a "mushroom" anymore.



BTW, that's one of the main reasons why the Dems find themselves in such a catfight right now; they have conflicting obligations to Blacks and Wimmin, both of whom are demanding THEIR OWN obeisance this time.


Proof of the pudding: lack of principle will ultimately come back and bite you in the butt every time.

Patronization is a losing strategy... every time.

"Take Back".............

Well, what can I say?

You expressed our outrage succinctly and eloquently, with a lot of passion.



Well done!

Missing the Gipper
I weep as I write and remember this wonderful man.

McCain's GOP "Conservative" Agenda:
1.) No Drilling in Anwar - wait a minute! Hasn't Sean Hannity been harping for years now about the necessity to drill this oil, and yet, he, too has backpedaled and decided to support this DEMOCRAT?!?

2.) Carbon footprinting - yet another nice, new clever underhanded, socialist tax scheme - worked great in Great Britain - brought the Tories back to power in record time. Go ahead, GOP, continue to support this Liberal Beyond Belief crap, so we can hasten your demise!

3.) Environmentalist whacko agenda - nothing remotely conservative here, just shamelessly pandering to get elected.

4.) Rejected tax cuts not once but twice!!! Nothing remotely conservative there!

5.) McCain-Feingold - doesn't even support the FIRST AMENDMENT to the US Constitution that he swore to uphold!!!

Cont'd

McCain's Agenda Cont'd
6.) Supreme Court Justices - nearly railroaded efforts by Conservatives to get conservative judges approved. By stifling an effort by the conservative leadership to force the DEMS to dare to filibuster judicial nominees, an important political opportunity to show what Liberals areall about was once again missed by the RINOS going to bat for their Liberal buddies to save them the political embarrassment of revealing just how much they oppose the US Constituional process.

7.) McShamnesty/Kennedy - McCain will open the border wide for his hombre buddies in La Raza because it's all about McCain's finest hour, his wanton lust for power - NOT being a Statesman and following the US Constitution and doing what's good for the country. He has not "learned his lesson"; that was only politcal cover to win the GOP nomination. When he grabs the reins of power, he will do whatever he damn well pleases JUST AS HE ALWAYS HAS DONE! McCain will have finally gotten what he has always wanted - the ultimate ego trip! There is nothing remotely conservative about adding 60 million people on the welfare dole when your country is completely bankrupt. THIS IS INSANITY! This is political and national suicide. This is an offense on the order of TREASON and IMPEACHMENT! He and many politicians in DC including Jorge Bush should be tried for Impeachment for dereliction of duty to uphold the laws and sovereignty of the US and the US Constitution when a 3rd party comes to power some day. It should be one of the first orders of business. These lawyers we have elected are well trained in how to remain above the law and game the law; most of them deserve long lengthy jail sentences.


Reagen
Reagen was a good man and a good President, but the best in 100 yrs.....NO WAY..!! Memories, like wine, become better with age..

JMO51 asks:
"Primus54 - I guess you think GWB was the best and FDR was the worse (sic)."
-----

Nope. In my lifetime, it has been Reagan - and certainly the best since Teddy Roosevelt.

FDR was a socialist - and we are paying for his social policies to this day. He did a great job of mobilizing and holding the country together during wartime, and wisely left the military execution to the professionals, most of whom were conservatives.


Primus54
So which of his socialist policies do you oppose? Social Security? I guess that makes most Americans Socialists since the vast majority favor Social Security. Even Bush's attempt to dismantel social security was sold to the public as Saving it. Fortunately, the people were not fooled and his proposals when no where and that was with a Republican Congress. Then there were all the great depression reforms like Banking Regulation, FDIC and the SEC. Every time conservatives try to tinker with those fine insitutions we have another disaster. Banking Deregulation (under Reagan) got us the S & L scandal and required a big taxpayer handout to save the system, Weaking of the SEC got us Enron and Worldcom and a second weakening of Wall Street and Banking regulations got us the current subprime crisis.

Everytime conservatives try to turn back the clock on the new deal programs we get another disaster. As to the war, I recall from my history that many conservatives of that time were isolationist or hitler appeasers. Thank god we had FDR and not the decendents of the the Conservative Movement otherwise who know we might all be speaking German now.

On more thing on Ronald Reagan, after the Marine Barracks was bombed in Lebanon what did Ronald Reagan do, he cut and ran and his actions are often cited by jihadists as proof that the US can be cowered by terrorism. So we really don't know what Reagan would have done if he had been President duing 9-11.

He does deserve credit for taking action against Libya, this in my opinion was his finest hour. Selling Arms to Iran was a low point.


LL in LA
There is a reason that Conservative Politician never seen to meet conservative expectations. You see far right conservatism is a radical revolutionary movement. They are great at being critics from the outside, but once elected they have to govern. That forces them to be pragmatic and make more moderate decisions.

Then the Radicals call them RINO's. Revolutionarys don't make good leaders.

Even the standard bearer of the Conservatives on close examination fails their litmus tests. He Raised Taxes, He cut and Ran from Lebanon,

He made secret deals with Iran). So when it comes to RR, Conservatives have selective memories, because if they reject Reagan as a RINO who do they have left, Herbert Boover?

What makes RR so important is that for a moment in time Far Right Conservatism was glorisly in vogue. Now they bicker and opine and blame others as the curtain is closing.

Yeah, "realcon" like I said

I don't care one whit what you can Google.

Did you read what I wrote about the crap that's in the textbooks and everything else nowdays as history's being re-written for kids your age?


Dude!.... I was THERE! I lived through the era, and was very active in the politics of the time. I couldn't care less what link you post.

Hell, I can post links that "prove" the Earth is flat, the Holocaust never happened, and the Moon landings took place on the Fox back lot.


Meaningless BS.

JMO...Hahahahahahahaha!

If Social Security was a program carried out by ANYONE other than the government, all of the perps involved would be arrested for being involved in a massive Ponzi Scheme.


Also, JMO

On reading your posts to Primus, in my earlier comments I already put the lie to the rest of your assertions as to your revisionist interpretations of Reagan's administration.


You and your pard "realcon" are trying hard, but until all of us who actually were alive during that era die, you have a real problem on your hands.


Of course, once we all croak off, you'll be able to rewrite history to your heart's content.


Hahahaha, "realcon"

I don't believe for one second that you're old enough to have actually been politically aware or involved at the time! Your posts are too ridiculous as to misstatement of actual fact.

Your whole premise is based on after the fact "study" of the times, and I'm being very generous in my phrasing there.

Dude. In the mid-late '70s, oil shale potential hit the screen as an alternative to sitting in gas lines at the pumps and having to fuel your car on alternate days depending on the last digit of your license plate number. It was rightly viewed as the answer to the problem of dependancy on an OPEC that had all of a sudden decided to flex its economic muscles at our expense.

The oil companies talked about their knowledge of the fields, and that before the gas crunch had not considered them economically viable, but that due to the then-current gas crunch they had revised their conclusions.

The tree-hugger-Nazis promptly filed lawsuits in Federal court to prevent development of those fields. Unfortunately, they were successful because the libs -- INCLUDING Carter -- were in power at the time.

This the same course that led to the blocking of further oil refinery production for the last 20+ years.


Now... you can Google your butt off for all I care, but that's what actually happened.

Well, Robert,

who'd have thought it, but two days in a row we solidly agree.

Your assessment of Reagan's actions regarding Lebanon are, IMO, totally solid and on the money.

Kudos. Great post and assessment.

(Man... we have to stop meeting this way. LOL!)


Robert, again, your 11:20PM post

is also very incisive and accurate.


Which then makes me jokingly ask:


Who are you, and where's the real Robert?


Good stuff, man.

Carter Destroyed US Military Power
I was in the military in 1985 and saw charts of the US vs USSR overall military might. You could see clearly on the graph that the US, before Carter came on the scene, had a mighty big jump on the Soviets in military power. The two graphs crisscrossed during the Carter years and then the US graph plummeted precipitously, again, all during the Carter years. WHY??? Because Carter was so damn stupid and gullible with his S.A.L.T.(Strategic Arms Limitation Treaties) I & II with the Beguiling Brezhnev who played him like the flute he was that Carter unwittingly gave away the fort with a big fat TREASONOUS smile for the camera. This caused many other nations of the world at the time to want to do business with the USSR rather than with the US. This sent a clear signal to the world that America is a paper tiger; if you need a strategic alliance, you had better put your bets on the Soviets. It was no small wonder that Iran took advantage of the US during Carter's administration. If I were in the military now, with the likelihood of an Obamination presidency looming on the horizon, I'd get out as quick as I can. One should never serve under the Party of TREASON.

"realcon"...((((((sigh))))))))))

Yeah, you're right, I guess I just imagined I was sitting in those gas lines, and all the newspaper reports at the time, and the fact that I was trying to make a living in sales when gas prices busted a buck for the first time ever (a HUGE increase at the time), and Carter was telling all of us that we should just bundle up in sweaters and turn our thermostats down to "freeze me" in the winter.

Yup... a bad dream induced by a lack of contact with reality.

My bad!

Beacuse good ole Jimmy The Peanut was akshully reeeely trooly trying to get them thar oil shales into the pipeline!


Thanks for the correction, bud. I'll try to reprogram my memory chips in the ole skid-sled.



Look, dim-bulb, did you get the part where I alreqady told you that the educational system rewries history to suit their agendae? Did you see my example of how easy it is when I rewrote and revised the history of Hitler's Germany. Do you have even three brain cells to rub together? Are you always so glib in writing off the testimony of peoplke who actually lived through events that are foreign to you? Do you have any idea what that says about YOUR analytic abilities?


Do any of those questions resonate with you at all?


People like YOU are what give life to people like Holocaust deniers.


PS, "realcon", on McRINO

Yet ANOTHER false assumption on your part.

I didn't in the past, nor will I ever under any circumstances, vote for McRINO.


Kid, you've got a lot to learn.

The Deficit Under Reagan
Yes, we had a massive deficit under Reagan because Reagan had to rebuild the military that Carter had completely eviscerated with SALT I & II. If Carter had never did the unthinkable, Reagan would never have had to straddle the nation with debt from the get-go. Such is the way it always goes with electing blithering idiot Liberals.

Reagan, to his credit, tried to convince an overwhelmingly Liberal HOR(House of Representatives - I love the acronym though; it sums up the place quite well, don't you think??? - LOL!!!) to give him the Line-Item veto, which was met predictably with stiff resistance. I rememeber his famous State of the Union "what's with all this Pork?" speech. It was Reagan's best political theatre ever. He walked up to the podium with a stack of bills that had to weigh around 50 lbs, and he immediately began rattling off to We The People all ofthe INSANE PORK PROJECTS the DEMS were spending OUR MONEY on like "Blueberry research" and so forth. The camera panned the room and every Democrat scoundrel was sitting on their hands becausefor once the bully pulpit shed light on what SOB's and whores these bastrds are. It was quite a show.

Today's GOP & Reagan
Reagan wanted to END the welfare state, which is in stark contrast to today's Liberal GOP. He specifically wanted to abolish the Departments of Energy and Education, which his predecessor Carter had created for political cover at taxpayer's expense. Bush also added to this bureaucracy when he added the useless and completely redundant Department of Homeland Security - again, for nothing more than political cover at taxpayer expense after 911.

Reagan had a spine. He fired the Air Traffic Controllers and bombed Qadafi's palace in retaliation. Reagan made jokes out of Liberals, while Bush and today's GOP cave to Liberalism, or is it not caving but rather their actual policy??? Who knows what these bastards stand for anymore??? In the end, they're not Statesmen or Conservatives, they're just politicians; whatever they stand for is always dependent on the next poll, I'm sure!


Getting Nostalgic, Are We?
Times like these can be frustrating, but confidence has always been the hallmark of CONSERVATISM. Trust me, we have to have lots of it to keep our sanity with the blithering idiot, incompetent, bozo boobs we're presented with these days. Doom and Gloom is the sure sign of a Liberal. That's why Liberals are the only group of morons subject to Obamamania, Hillary-Is-Our-Anointed-Queen Euphoria, and other forms of demagogic worship. When you've been depressed as long as these people by their own self-imposed imprisonment of their own negative, paranoid, irrational thoughts on EVERYTHING under the sun, anyone who speaks Liberal, Kumbaya, neo-hippie, flower-child, give-peace-a-chance garbage sounds like the Messiah Incarnate. It is no small coincidence that these people WORSHIP rock stars, Hollywood pop-tarts, barflies, & moonbats, the Dalai Lama, and treat politics as a religion. All of their faith is in Man and the things of this world. There is little inner peace in their lives.


Who Will Save US NOW? NOT THE GOP!
Liberals like Carter and Obama, when left with the presidency, can do hell to a nation's military and national security, but the GOP with its reckless abandonment of conservatism itself has left many of us TRUE CONSERVATIVES with no other choice, but to go 3rd party, - no - not to "teach the GOP a lesson"! Do you really think we TRUE CONSERVATIVES are stupid enough to believe the GOP is even capable of learning any lessons after their behavior after and up to 2006 and after 12 wasted years of a do-nothing GOP and a do-nothing GOP President who almost forced Amnesty down our throats???

The party is interminably incompetent at doing CONSERVATISM; all it knows how to do is BIG GOVERNMENT LIBERALISM, RINOISM, and WELFARE STATE LITE. It wipes its butt with OUR CONSTITUTION just like the DEMS do. It's just another political whore bought and paid for by Corporate America.

They play us like flutes with platitudinous, populist poppycock and all sorts of feel-good, confidence-building, happy, horse hockey at election time long enough to get us riled up or euphorically hypnotized into a state of fervor or fury so that they can get our vote, and then get out of town and get on back to Corporate Whoring business as usual in DC like the corrupt lawyers most of these SOB's are.

Biennially, this is our future until we collectively decide to say, "ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!" and go 3rd party and put an end to this insanity that is DESTROYING OUR COUNTRY right before our very eyes.

Nations invariably reach a point almost every 200 years when government change happens seemingly in a natural cycle to rid itself of corruption. America has reached the end of her cycle. IF WE THE PEOPLE DON'T SAVE HER, WHO WILL???

Reagan Despised Polls
True Conservatism has never relied on polls to determine its policies, but that is exactly how today's chic Liberalism operates. Both the GOP and the DEMS have been doing this for quite some time now. This "Contract For America" crap is just such a gimmick that will be derived from some serious polling by the RNC. The only schmucks who will answer these polls will be either Democrats or Moderate or Liberal RINOS. True Conservatives are NEVER polled, and even if we were polled, we'd just say, "It's too late; you had your silly Contract in 1994 and you broke the agreement! Besides, there already is a contract; it's called the US CONSTITUTION, you know, the document you wipe your butt with everyday! BYE!" True leadership, which is what Reagan exuded, NEVER relies on polling. Policy should come from one's individual principles, not from polls. Our politicians have a political guide that is called the US Constitution. Apparently, it also makes for some good toilet tissue in DC these days.

LOL, Robert!

Yeah, we're in some alternate Universe at the moment, which I kinda like.


So... you met Ronald? I am envious. That is really great for you, man. His Bel Air estate was one of my client accounts many years ago on security systems, and I've been there a few times, but never had the actual honor of meeting the Man himself.

Good for you!


A thought, Robert

Hey, man, if you're up for some direct convo, drop me a line at my email brb2970@ca.rr.com (a disposable) and I'll give you my direct email.

I'd really like to talk to you. I like this new model Robert.


Wobbie...You keep avoiding me...

Why??? Just answer the question....

Are you....

1. Impersonating and officer?

--------------or-------------

2. Violating the UCMJ?



Very, very cool

Obviously, then, you were a kid out here in Leftifornia. Sounds like your Dad was military or State Police or something. Great experience for you.

I remember the Skylane very well; Cessna 172. I learned on a 150. Good airplanes.

Pard, contact me. Let's talk.


Okay, Rob,
Got your email.

I'll send to you; I seem to be having trouble accessing my OWN emails. I don't know what's wrong with Time Warner.


Grrrrrr...............


Okay! I just saved your email addy. You've got mine.

Let's talk tomorrow.




Robert
I knew that about Lebanon. We should not have gone there in the first place and when was clear that we could not fix things we got out. So why are so many Republicans and conservatives calling suggesting that anyone the John Murtha just wanted to cut and run. Why is it when an issue involves a conservative leader conservatives are capaible of careful anaylsis, but if a Dem or Liberal acts the same way it is quickly labeled cutting and running.

Hannity and Lumbaugh would be on overdrive telling us how this emobldened Osama?

So are the Dems who want a planned withdrawal from Iraq following Reagan Principles?

HEY...A MIRACLE!
Brian R.---and wobbie getting along?
Hey, Brian r. aren't you the guy who chuckled
when wobbie and I agreed on one point!? ha ha
Is this the real world today? I guess miracles do happen...there must be a GOD! smile
Most of the GOP candidates had some good points....but I guess we get carried away looking for..PERFECTION(?)Huh?
elvis

Hey, Elvis!

Man, I never say "never"!

Let's see how it pans out.

Actually, I remember some time ago a discussion on some SCOTUS issue, and Robert and I were on the same side of that discussion, too.

I don't look for "perfection", because it's an unachievable goal in real life.

I'll settle for clarity and courtesy.


JMO, good point.

You: "Why is it when an issue involves a conservative leader conservatives are capable of careful anaylsis, but if a Dem or Liberal acts the same way it is quickly labeled cutting and running?"

Yeah, interesting, isn't it?

There are folks on both sides of the aisle guilty of ad hominem attacks, because it's easy and demands no intellectual rigor.



Redlac #9 - 1
Excellent, and well said. The GOP's biggest problem today is that the things Hawkins proposes we get behind are not conservative concepts: they are premised on a role for government in encouraging individuals to save and spend in particular ways.

It's not a conservative approach to want to get in charge of the government so you can manage people's health care the way YOU think it should be managed. "Government-implemented 'market' solutions" are still government-implemented -- and therefore are, by definition, market distortions. Government intervention of ANY kind, whether regulation, tax, subsidy, or incentive, does one or both of only two things: cause prices to go up, and cause shortages.

The conservative approach would keep government small enough that the citizens are not working to pay for it nearly half of each year, and therefore have much greater discretion over their own incomes. The GOP's problem keeping a base lies in the fact that there is still a substantial number of Americans who have not bought into "strong government" or whatever Fred Barnes is calling it today. Statism inevitably gives us things like the Social Security system, into which I have been paying since 1977, and which will go broke when I am 82. Think how much more I could have arranged for my own retirement without the SSA -- and WITH the 18.4 cents a gallon I have been paying in federal gas taxes since I started driving; or the cost to me through all my consumer purchases, over the past 30 years, of increasing environmental and employment regulations; or, indeed, just the 28% or more of my income that has gone annually to the federal government.

Redlac #9 - 2
We already have extensive, government-mandated cost-sharing in health care, and that's why it costs so much. It's not a "market" solution for government to "give" tax incentives to individuals so they can keep paying for health care on a heavily-regulated cost-sharing basis. A conservative approach would be to deregulate. But the GOP has already thrown in the towel on that. Republicans who don't see themselves as helpless without government increasingly have no party home.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.