Republicans are much more vocal with what they believe, and they're a lot more aggressive if you disagree with them. So democrats just shut their mouths and pull the lever.
Reagan pre-dated the rise of Christian Conservatism, and he just destroyed Carter in the debates.
Republicans have to wind in the religious nuts and put somebody out there talking dollars. Think Reagan's, Goldwater's brand of conservatism, not Palin's, Santorum's brand of conservatism.

So true
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Those were the days..
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No, I read just about everything.

The only state you list where the GOP has a great chance is Nebraska, a few like Florida or Maine could go either way.

Deal, what charity are you going to pick? :devil2: :hihi:

-spence

please tell us more:uhuh:

One of Ronald Regan's first executive orders was to cut the overtime federal withholding tax for hourly workers so it was no greater than their straight time rate.
It used to be, if you worked overtime, your federal withholding was at a higher rate than your straight 40 - and you didn't get back the additional at tax time, regardless of deductions. You effectively were penalized for working o.t..
He reached out to the clock punchers and gave them a bone, and a greater incentive to increase productivity.

that's how you sum up Reagan and Goldwater Conservatism and how it differs from Santorum and Palin Conservatism?

“Mr. Conservative” – Barry Goldwater and the Genesis of the Conservative Movement

In the 1950s, Barry Morris Goldwater emerged as the nation’s leading conservative politician. It was Goldwater, along with his growing legion of “Goldwater Conservatives,” who brought the concepts of small government, free enterprise and a strong national defense into the national public debate. These were the original planks of the conservative movement and remain the heart of the movement today. In the late 1950s, Goldwater became closely associated with the anti-Communist movement, and was an avid supporter of Sen. Joseph McCarthy. Goldwater stuck with McCarthy until the bitter end and was one of only 22 members of Congress who refused to censure him. Goldwater supported desegregation and civil rights to varying degrees. He got himself into political hot water, however, with his opposition to legislation that would eventually turn into the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Goldwater was a passionate Constitutionalist, who had supported the NAACP and had backed previous versions of civil rights legislation, but he opposed the 1964 bill because he believed it violated states’ rights to self-govern. During the Republican National Convention in 1964, Goldwater gave perhaps the most conservative acceptance speech ever uttered when he said, “I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”

I don't think Reagan varied much from Goldwater on issues of smaller government, states rights, individual liberty, free enterprise and national defense....nor do Palin or Santorum as far as I know...

from Kengor's book....Mr. Kengor wrote, “[Reagan’s] belief in God was a key source of his optimism and his boldness, his daring and self-security, and his confidence; these essential intangibles carried him throughout his presidency — and career as a whole — and enabled him to achieve what he did.”

Reagan’s words "Those who created our country — the Founding Fathers and Mothers — understood that there is a divine order which transcends the human order. They saw the state, in fact, as a form of moral order and felt that the bedrock of moral order is religion. ... The truth is, politics and morality are inseparable. And as morality’s foundation is religion, religion and politics are necessarily related. We need religion as a guide. We need it because we are imperfect, and our government needs the church, because only those humble enough to admit they’re sinners can bring to democracy the tolerance it requires in order to survive."

"Without God, there is no virtue, because there’s no prompting of the conscience. Without God, we’re mired in the material, that flat world that tells us only what the senses perceive. Without God, there is a coarsening of the society. And without God, democracy will not and cannot long endure. If we ever forget that we’re one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under."
Mr. Reagan was a loyal supporter of the unborn and spoke of the need for a constitutional amendment to permit voluntary school prayer.


where Goldwater differs from Reagan, Palin and Santorum politically and what some would like to include in their version of "Goldwater Conservatism" is his later libertarian views on pot, abortion and gay marriage...they don't embrace his Conservative views but rather, his moderation on these issues.......Goldwater and Reagan had a little problem with Communism and Socialism...get yourself to and democrat or leftist rally and notice how much Communist and Socialist literature is being handed out...the democrat party is the home to America's socialist and communists...still waiting for Spence to name a Democrat Constitutionalist in Congress:uhuh:

Joe....if you long for the Reagan and Goldwater Conservatism based on small government, Constitutional governance, free enterprise, state's rights, individual liberty.... I'd suggest to you that the only place where this still resides is among the "nuts" that you appear to have a problem with...these principles are completely absent in the current democrat party...

so Joe...who do you vote for???

Your lead is one sentence. That's why my reply was short. Yet your retort is about 900 words? I'm familiar with Goldwater Conservatism, but I prefer the Objectivism of Ayn Rand that influenced Goldwater considerably. Moreover, what you've done here is bad form; you should bait fish, not people.

I cited one Reagan policy. But it was that policy which did more for working Americans to dispel the idea that republicans "are all for the rich" than all the talk that never improved a working person's life.

I did not cite Goldwater policy because there is none. He lost. Goldwater is regarded as a conservative theorist. Theorist is a charitable term they designate to losing politicians who influence other politicians. Whatever the loser does later when his marbles start to go is amusing or disturbing, but not policy.

Reagan pulled from Goldwater, but was astute enough not to go too far. "Morning in America," was a better approach to the people than Goldwater's failed, scary warnings. I voted for Reagan.

Communism failed worldwide in 1989, with the exception of North Korea, Cuba, and China (which has moderated considerably) - and it's not making a comeback.

Reagan won the Cold War by engaging in an arms race that bankrupted the USSR when they tried to keep up. Sure, it ratcheted up debt, but the nukes were never launched. The Cold War was won through diplomacy, and by outspending the Russians - the best formula for victory we could reasonably hope for. It's behind us now. Regan possibly saved the world.

America is not going socialist regardless of how much leftist literature is handed out by the Occupy Movement. We simply can't afford it.

you said "think Goldwater/Reagan Conservatism....not Santorum/Palin's brand of"......I asked for more regarding your take on the differences....you've not offered anything so far....I was just wondering as you threw that out there...... as though the differences were obvious:confused:

glad to see someone else gets up early too:)

That might well be the most stunningly inaccurate thing I've ever heard. Anarchy has become almost synonymous with the word "liberal".

"democrats just shut their mouths and pull the lever". Yeah, we never hear a peep from Democrats like Al Sharpton, or the Hollywood crowd...

Democrats are peaceful in their dissent? You mean those same Occupiers who took over the Brooklyn Bridge?

When was the last time you ever heard of a right-wing riot? Earth to Joe...it almost never happens.

When was the last time a liberal tried to speak, at say a college, and the stage was stormed by conservative protesters? Why is it always the liberals who storm the stage to keep conservatives from speaking?

I've heard some strange things here. I've never heard anyone suggest that conservatives are more feral or anarchist than liberals.

"a few like Florida or Maine could go either way."

We're saying the same thing, I think. My point is, very few of the seats are in guaranteed blue states like CT. Many will be in play. Spence, do you know why so many Democrats are retiring (like Ben Nelson - NE and Kent Contrad - ND)? Because these guys see that they are polling at less than zero, and they don't have the character to face the music. The GOP is going to open up a serious can of whoop-ass in the Senate elections.



I'll pick Wounded Warriors. It's a great charity that makes it possible for families of wonded vets to be with, and care for, the wounded when they return. A great charity.

What's yours? Free Abu Mumia Jamal? Kidding...

I like this bet Spence, if I lose, at least I know some good will come out of it, so thanks. And remember, I only win if the GOP makes gains in BOTH the Senate and the House. No way we fail to make gains in the Senate, the House could go either way. I should've asked for odds, but I am a man of my word as you will see...

You're right that we can't afford it. You're wrong if you say that's not where we're headed. When Obama explicitly tells a church that it must abandon its beliefs and provide a service which it teaches is immoral, that's at least socialistic, if not outright totalitarian.

Our 2 largest entitlement programs are social security and Medicare. Those programs are currently underfunded by at least $50 trillion, possibly as much as $100 trillion - that's trillion with a "t". There are 300 million Americans. You do the math to figure out how much more we need. Many states are in the same boat, with insane peomises made to public labor unions.

We sure cannot afford it, but for some reason, that's not stopping us from pursuing it. That's what Obama, and most liberals, cannot grasp.

Kind of a tough neighborhood over here.

not really...maybe a lot of passion....you don't learn much about people if you don't engage them, you really learn about people when you challenge their views....it's not a bad thing...actually a pretty good learning experience for everyone ......usually:)

I assume you're referring to me, if not, you can ignore.

I'm sorry if I offended you, really I am. But (1) if you say that liberals protest by voting silently, and conservatives are the ones who aggressively yell at those they disagree with, you have to admit, that's a provocative statement (and one that I happen to think is demonstrably false). And (2) email language often conveys a tone that is harsher than intended, at least in my case.

Joe, I was going to reply but Jim basically covered it. Most liberals I know are very vocal. Do you remember all the anti - bush bumper stickers? How about the unions? Media? Look at the aderserial language Obama has used! I dont recall that with other presidents. I feel I've spent years defending my beliefs from loons.

the angry right????
Love the free education part.......

SACRAMENTO, California (Reuters) - Dozens of protesters angry over fee hikes and budget cuts at California's public universities were arrested on Monday night during a boisterous but peaceful demonstration inside the state Capitol building.

The arrests capped a day in which hundreds of students and others marched on the statehouse and rallied outside the Capitol before many of the activists moved the demonstration inside the building, clogging hallways in and around the rotunda.

One group chanted, "No cuts, no fees. Education must be free," as they sat crossed-legged on the black-and-white tiled floor of the statehouse.

How could I foeget about my favorite bunch, public labor unions. Remember what they did at the Ohio state capital recently? Their governor wanted public employees to contribute 5 cents a month to their bloated pensions, and they went berserk (Zimmy, this is hyperbole).

This is liberalism sumed up in one sentence, thusly...

"gimme, gimme, gimme..."

"Education must be free"...

Education will be free when teachers are unpaid volunteers. These protesters should go to the next Board of Education meeting in their towns, and watch what happens when they suggest that we don't spend a cent on education. I was on my town's board of education, and when I suggested that teachers switch from pensions to 401(k)s like the rest of the planet, they told me that clearly I hate children.

Obviously, these idiots don't mean that education should be "free" - they know that education costs money. They just don't feel like they themselves should bear any of that cost. Rather, others - preferably mean, white, male conservatives - should pick up the tab for them to go to college.

Gimme, gimme, gimme...

What a way to go through life. And here in my state of CT, I lose to these people every single year. The only question is the magnitude of the rout.

Education should be free. These same kooks are the ones who want to give teachers guaranteed jobs for life, ridiculously bloated pensions, and Cadillac healthcare benefits. That's what liberals want. Oh, and one more thing...THEY don't want to have to pay for it.

Calgon, take me away...RIJIMMY and ScottW, how exactly, do we lose to these people??

You know who really sucked as president Busch and who really sucked as Speaker of the House Gingrich and what do they have in common???:no2: Both of those jackasses are Republicans. :fury:

:lurk:

The problem is people throw around words that don't have a lot of meaning.

Very few people in this country are self described liberals. The majority of Democrats in the US are still way to the Right of moderates in the EU or Australia.

Few who call themselves Republicans actually behave like Republicans say they should behave. Many Republicans will quite often behave like Democrats.

The problem with the GOP today is that since they don't often behave like they say they should...nobody believes them.

The problem with the DNC today is that they say they believe in a lot of what Republicans stand for but then don't actually do it...so nobody believes them.

The majority of voters are really independents and will vote for character above anything else, knowing that it probably doesn't really make a difference if the president is a D or a R.

-spence

I learn more from reading threads like this than watching the news. Good stuff.

most experts, most economists, most people, very few, moderates, nobody, the majority :)

How is this voting "for character above anything else" thing been working?

Maybe "independents" are poor judges of character?

Or, maybe, "character," which is in the eye of the beholder, and which is usually manufactured by political and media spin (which is why half the folks love the same guy that half the folks hate), is as irrelevent as the D or the R?

It seems, by your formula, that the "independents" might just as well not vote since "liberals" are not liberals and Republicans are not Republicans and they are all going to do the same thing anyway and the character thing is phony.

Maybe some people fear the unfamiliar and unknown. I support the health care reform for example. What you said there sounds like something I would hear on the republican propaganda network
I mean FOX NEWS :D

Being new to the forum, you are not familiar with Spence's posts. He is being sarcastic (throwing chum as he might put it), he is more on your side than not.

So, you're all in for the Federal Government having the power to require you to buy something?

Welcome to the Site....and since you wandered in here...

God Have Mercy on Your Soul.....

Detbuch, on one hand, it seems awfully totalitarian for the feds to require us to buy something, doesn't it?

On the other hand, hear me out here...some folks are born healthy (thanks to nothing but good luck), some are born sick (through no fault of theirs). It seems to me, and I bet most folks agree, that folks who are born sick, or get sick by bad luck, shou'dn't have to suffer financial hardship because of something they had no control over. Meaning, we should all be required to pitch in to help them out. And one way to do this is to require healthy people to buy insurance, and this will help create the funds to help pay for sick folks.

Maybe there's another way to fund what I'm talking about, without requiring everyone to buy insurance. But I have no problem saying to healthy people "look, you are only healthy by blind luck, so we all have the responsibility to help those who were not as lucky".

As for people who smoke, and choose to be overweight...they should have to pay a huge premium for healthcare.

What do you think?

True,and it all started with Franklin D Roosevelt's second Bill of Rights.

The Founding Fathers Bill of Rights included the following:

Right to equal freedom, independent of other human beings.
Right to aquire property.
Right to Relegion according to the dictates of conscience.
Right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Roosevelt's Second Bill of Rights in 1944 were:

Employment with a living wage.
Freedom from unfair competition and monopoly.
Housing
Medical care
Education
Social Security

So therefore we have this huge Government who conrols close to
50% of our economy and now THEY want Gimme -Gimme -Gimme.