Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Hap on March 04, 2007, 02:49:03 AM
-
http://www.talk.newsweek.com/politics/default.asp?item=512417
I found this article very interesting because in it the author discusses some things of which I know little.
Especially the Baker/Scrowcroft arm of the GOP. I know who both Brent Scrowcroft and James Baker are. I do not know what issues their "wing" considers important, and how they differientate themselves from others within the GOP.
Also, maybe about a 1/3 of the way through, the author quotes someone at the recent conference (I forgot the name) saying that in the opinion of the fellow speaking none of the GOP front runners for President are Conservatives.
If he means in a Barry Goldwater sense, I understand. And for anyone who is remotely interestest in this thread, reading Goldwater's speech when he accepted the GOP's nomination for President, is a must. The main issues he highlighted is what "conservative" has meant and still means for me today.
Ronald Regan is evoked and referenced in the article as well. There's quite a difference between the two men, Goldwater and Regan. When I hear "Conservative" I think of Goldwater before Regan.
I'm sure a 25 year old would have a different take than this 50 year old.
Even so, I think the above article raises some really good discussion points.
Over the past 15 years, to my way of thinking, what has passed for Conservativism is "anti democratic" spleen. Especially the TV/Radio bowling for dollars phenomenon which looks like it will outlast me. Full of Sound and Fury but Signifying Nothing.
There's a vast difference between "we're best because those guys are 'tards," and "we've got better answers because our ideas are superior."
Also, on Real Clear Politics, where the link above will take you (or at least that's where I got it), you can read Bill Buckley's piece on Arthur Schlesinger who recently died. A good piece.
All the Best,
hap
-
Originally posted by Hap
http://www.talk.newsweek.com/politics/default.asp?item=512417
Over the past 15 years, to my way of thinking, what has passed for Conservativism is "anti democratic" spleen. Especially the TV/Radio bowling for dollars phenomenon which looks like it will outlast me. Full of Sound and Fury but Signifying Nothing.
I havent read the article yet. And this is
not intended as a slap at your comment but
The exact same thing can be said in reverse
Each side doesnt nothing but demonise the other anymore.
Problem is there are way way WAY too many brainwashed and brain dead people that actually buy into their spew
-
You might want to realize that political parties shift.
All democrats are not pointy hood KKK members anymore for instance... George Wallace was a very good representitive of the democratic party back in the 60's.
A Goldwater conservative would be a good thing today. The KKK democrat not so much...
lazs
-
Especially the Baker/Scrowcroft arm of the GOP. I know who both Brent Scrowcroft and James Baker are. I do not know what issues their "wing" considers important, and how they differientate themselves from others within the GOP.
I'm not aware that either of them is relevant in the GOP...though I'm sure the two moderates from the Bush 1 administration might SEEM such to a writer for a left wing rag like Newsweek. As for Cheny being 'embattled'...not sure what is the basis for that--he made some very basic, even-handed statements about the views/actions of the Dem leadership, and Pelosi got her panties in a wad--to the extent that she called Bush and complained :rofl
At any rate, there ARE no conservatives in the presidential picture (Duncan Hunter hasn't a prayer, and though Newt is a prolific orator, he has too much baggage) It's prolly gonna be Giuiliani, whose pulling away from McCain, who is finding out that being loved by the media for poking his own party in the eye on every major issue of the day (He was even against TAX cuts:O ) Doesnt garner support within the GOP. Not sure how many conservatives will vote for a social liberal like Rudy--one thing about him, he is at least consistent in his views, unlike the others. The man doesn't apologize for who he is
-
Originally posted by bj229r
I'm not aware that either of them is relevant in the GOP...though I'm sure the two moderates from the Bush 1 administration might SEEM such to a writer for a left wing rag like Newsweek. As for Cheny being 'embattled'...not sure what is the basis for that--he made some very basic, even-handed statements about the views/actions of the Dem leadership, and Pelosi got her panties in a wad--to the extent that she called Bush and complained :rofl
At any rate, there ARE no conservatives in the presidential picture (Duncan Hunter hasn't a prayer, and though Newt is a prolific orator, he has too much baggage) It's prolly gonna be Giuiliani, whose pulling away from McCain, who is finding out that being loved by the media for poking his own party in the eye on every major issue of the day (He was even against TAX cuts:O ) Doesnt garner support within the GOP. Not sure how many conservatives will vote for a social liberal like Rudy--one thing about him, he is at least consistent in his views, unlike the others. The man doesn't apologize for who he is
both Rudy and McCain are basically pro-war. didn't running pro-war candidates lose Congress for the GOP last time? either would lose to Obama and would be seen as "more of the same from the GOP". IMHO, Ron Paul is just the ticket to beating Obama, as he has an undisputable track record of sticking to his guns and being loyal to the constitution.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
You might want to realize that political parties shift.
All democrats are not pointy hood KKK members anymore for instance... George Wallace was a very good representitive of the democratic party back in the 60's.
A Goldwater conservative would be a good thing today. The KKK democrat not so much...
lazs
There was a huge difference between the Southern Democrats (Dixiecrats) and the rest of the Democratic party. But you probably knew this already.
-
Originally posted by bsdaddict
both Rudy and McCain are basically pro-war. didn't running pro-war candidates lose Congress for the GOP last time? either would lose to Obama and would be seen as "more of the same from the GOP". IMHO, Ron Paul is just the ticket to beating Obama, as he has an undisputable track record of sticking to his guns and being loyal to the constitution.
'Pro-war' (interpreted by me as 'don't surrender and leave') , is the ONLY conservative trait McSain has shown, and he's waffled a little bit on THAT of late. IMO, many of the candidates who lost in 2006, lost because they failed to get Republicans who voted for them in the past to vote for them again---too worried about being everything to everybody, which took their base for granted) As I said before, at least Rudy is consistent in his views, most of which ARE conservative--as conservative as one can BE in New York City.
(and let's get real, a president isnt going to make abortion illegal, no matter WHAT he tries to do--the best he could accomplish is create a S.C. which would repeal the very-flawed Roe-v-Wade decision, which would create a yes-no vote in all 50 states, At least THAT will have been decided by the voters)
-
Thanks Midnight. I was going to say.
And for those who want to know, Google Hubert Humphrey's 1948 speech at the Democratic Convention (I think it was there).
Which flew in the Dixiecrats face big time.
All the Best,
hap
-
Originally posted by Hap
Thanks Midnight. I was going to say.
And for those who want to know, Google Hubert Humphrey's 1948 speech at the Democratic Convention (I think it was there).
Which flew in the Dixiecrats face big time.
All the Best,
hap
Dixiecrats? Claiming the south was/is more racist than the north is to ignore existing segregation (not official policy of course) in northern cities like Detroit, Chicago, New York and dozens of others. At least in the south we recognize hypocrisy when we see it.
-
Right.
-
Originally posted by lukster
Dixiecrats? Claiming the south was/is more racist than the north is to ignore existing segregation (not official policy of course) in northern cities like Detroit, Chicago, New York and dozens of others. At least in the south we recognize hypocrisy when we see it.
True enough. The most racially divided city i've ever been in is/was Chicago.
-
What smaller then a Gieco insurance commercial midget?
The todo list of an elected democrat!
-
Originally posted by lukster
Claiming the south was/is more racist than the north is
Lukster,
Tell me how you want to measure please?
E.g., by aera, population, influence, and or shared social values that make a thing/idea/event so in the minds of those sharing values?
Oh, and what time frame too.
Regards,
hap
-
I think both Mitt and McCain are both Goldwater Republicans at heart...however, they have had to publicly flip-flop on some personal freedom issues to appease the Religious Right...whereas Goldwater refused to cave.
-
The South shall rise again!
-
Originally posted by crowMAW
I think both Mitt and McCain are both Goldwater Republicans at heart...however, they have had to publicly flip-flop on some personal freedom issues to appease the Religious Right...whereas Goldwater refused to cave.
Name ANYthing McCain has ever done that can be considered "right", other than lukewarm support of the war--(He was even against the Bush tax cuts!) on the other hand, all the stuff he has done to ingratiate himself to the fawning media would only appeal to country-club Republicans at best
-
mt.. you are living in a fantasy world.. then, as now.. the democrats voted along party lines. The democrats voted along with the "dixiecrats".
So how would you explain the dixiecrats? was it because the republicans were introducing so much equal rights legeslation?
And what was the result? the democrats not only seen the writing on the wall but they went over the top... they seen a huge amount of new voters that could be duped... the black vote now existed.. they seen the pent up anger and fed on it with all sorts of extra rights bills. they are still doing it.. buying votes by trashing the constitution and making race based laws.
lazs
-
If the democrats voted along with the dixiecrats on everything why did we have Strom Thurmond running as a third party candidate?
Quit making stuff up and calling it history.
-
Originally posted by bj229r
that can be considered "right"
You know, I've never read the The Federalist Papers. That's a good starting point.
Action from principal v expediency is always a bug-bear as CrowMAW pointed out.
Ingnorance is a bit of a prob too especially in a day and age when "personalities" -- fill in the blank with the name of the guy who's thinking and opinon you parrot, if you do -- versus "principles" which are far superior measuring sticks to anyone raking in millions pandering what what's worst in us.
I need something worthwhile to read at work during lunch. Madison and Hamilton it is!
Take Care Guys,
hap
-
Ya know, calling folks parrots ain't exactly original thinking either Hap. Enjoy your reading.
-
"Daddy can ya take me back to Muhlenberg County, down by the Green River, where paradise lays?
I'm sorry my son, but you're too late in askin, Mr's Peabody's coal train has hauled it ...away"
Man I loved this song..*givin away my age now...*
Well, sometimes we'd travel right down the Green River
To the abandoned old prison down by Airdrie Hill
Where the air smelled like snakes and we'd shoot with our pistols
But empty pop bottles was all we would kill.
~sigh~
Memories
Mac
(http://www.jpshrine.org/lyrics/songs/trivia/radarcherylprineave.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Hap
You know, I've never read the The Federalist Papers. That's a good starting point.
Action from principal v expediency is always a bug-bear as CrowMAW pointed out.
Ingnorance is a bit of a prob too especially in a day and age when "personalities" -- fill in the blank with the name of the guy who's thinking and opinon you parrot, if you do -- versus "principles" which are far superior measuring sticks to anyone raking in millions pandering what what's worst in us.
I need something worthwhile to read at work during lunch. Madison and Hamilton it is!
Take Care Guys,
hap
Im gonna go out on a limb and say McCain isn't on a first-name basis with the Federalist papers either, else he wouldn't have penned 'campaign finance reform'
-
Originally posted by AWMac
Man I loved this song..*givin away my age now...*
Well, sometimes we'd travel right down the Green River
To the abandoned old prison down by Airdrie Hill
Where the air smelled like snakes and we'd shoot with our pistols
But empty pop bottles was all we would kill.
~sigh~
Memories
Mac
(http://www.jpshrine.org/lyrics/songs/trivia/radarcherylprineave.jpg)
I had HEARD of John Prine...thought him some sort of acoustic blues artist until my oldest bud in the world turned me onto him one night while visiting him in FLA--copied the 2 disc 'best-of' cd, have listened to it a million times since.
"Sam Stone came home,
To his wife and family
After serving in the conflict overseas.
And the time that he served,
Had shattered all his nerves,
And left a little shrapnel in his knee.
But the morphine eased the pain,
And the grass grew round his brain,
And gave him all the confidence he lacked,
With a purple heart and a monkey on his back.
(Chorus)
Theres a hole in daddys arm where all the money goes,
Jesus Christ died for nothin I suppose.
Little pitchers have big ears,
Dont stop to count the years,
Sweet songs never last too long on broken radios.
Mmm....
Sam Stones welcome home
Didnt last too long.
He went to work when hed spent his last dime
And sammy took to stealing
When he got that empty feeling
For a hundred dollar habit without overtime.
And the gold rolled through his veins
Like a thousand railroad trains,
And eased his mind in the hours that he chose,
While the kids ran around wearin other peoples clothes..."
Aside from a particular song by Gram Parsons, one of the most poignant songs Ive ever heard....and this from a guy who has every Black Sabbath album ever made:eek:
-
Originally posted by lukster
Ya know, calling folks parrots ain't exactly original thinking either Hap. Enjoy your reading.
I hope not Lukster "if" they be parrots as I stated above. I strove for truthfulness and accuracy.
As to "originality" generally,
original
• adjective 1 existing from the beginning; first or earliest. 2 produced first-hand; not a copy. 3 inventive or novel.
• noun the earliest form of something, from which copies can be made.
it specifically and certainly does not describe me.
And thanks, the reading went well. Didn't get very far though. But I did run across something that granted a little comfort in these fractious times.
Hamilton in #1, "nothing could be more ill-judged than that intolerant spirit which has, at all times, characterized political parties."
A weak comfort no doubt, but it seems that rancor is not a 20th to 21st century invention. It's when you read it in context considering the seriousness of the times and painstaking deliberation and the men to whom we owe so much.
Regards,
hap
-
Originally posted by Hap
I hope not Lukster "if" they be parrots as I stated above. I strove for truthfulness and accuracy.
As to "originality" generally,
original
• adjective 1 existing from the beginning; first or earliest. 2 produced first-hand; not a copy. 3 inventive or novel.
• noun the earliest form of something, from which copies can be made.
it specifically and certainly does not describe me.
And thanks, the reading went well. Didn't get very far though. But I did run across something that granted a little comfort in these fractious times.
Hamilton in #1, "nothing could be more ill-judged than that intolerant spirit which has, at all times, characterized political parties."
A weak comfort no doubt, but it seems that rancor is not a 20th to 21st century invention. It's when you read it in context considering the seriousness of the times and painstaking deliberation and the men to whom we owe so much.
Regards,
hap
William Safire wrote a great novel called 'Scandalmonger', which goes into great detail the norms for politics in the days of the afore-mentioned Hamilton--great read. Brb, gotta go check Drudge, Rush, and Newsmax websights so I'll know what to say next:noid
-
mt... making stuff up? where were you when the democrats had their convention in 68? Was that a bunch of neocons and KKK guys that rioted? I can see where, to someone who only goes back a few decades I may be seen to be making things up tho.
Hubert Humphrey was the best democrat that ever ran. He would be pilloried as a "neocon" conservative by your democrat heroes of today.
In fact.. I would vote for someone who had his platform today over most of the republicans who are running.
If you can't see how the democrats have shifted even more than the republicans then you are very short sighted indeed.
lazs
-
Oh come on.
I never said Humphry wasn't conservative, for that matter so was Kennedy. You said the democrats and the dixiecrats always voted together. Why would you argue a completely different subject when I call you on it?
Also .... you're only 5-6 years older than me. While that is gawdawful old it is not outside my frame of reference.
-
this is getting confusing... are you admitting that conservatives always vote for equal human rights and that humphrey (who did not get his parties nomination by the way) was conservative even by todays standards?
There were disenters in the democrat ranks.. if was a very fractured party as you recall with a lot of democrats voting with the dixiecrats. Very few Republicans did.
The split came when the democrats decided that the jig was up (no pun intended) and seen that the republicans had created a powerful voting block in the newly empowered negro. They then pandered to the colored vote in what has become the now classic democrat style.. create victims and feed their anger and then promise them "extra rights" that they deserve because everyone had been so mean to em in the past... pure socialism at work.. the democratic party and socialist victims fit like a hand and glove. In this case.. the glove fits you can't aquit.
I would not say that Kennedy was conservative by his days standards. I would have a tough time voting for him. the only reason to keep him around would have been to keep LBJ, the third worst president of all time, from getting in power.
To me the democrat party is total scum... much worse than the republicans who are only about half as bad and half as much a threat to the country.
I would like to see a return to conservatism... not an endless debate on birth control or sexual morals... I don't need one side trying to tax me to death and disarm me and the other trying to regulate my entertainment and sex.
That is not a choice of parties.. that is the very worst example of "lesser of two evils"
The democrats and the republicans are both in a race to see who can make up the most laws and take away the most freedoms... the democrats are way ahead but... The republican are trying.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Hap
it seems that rancor is not a 20th to 21st century invention.
hap
You do realize how Hamilton died, right?
Seen anyone challenge someone else to a duel to the death or beat another legislator with a cane in the Senate lately?
THAT was rancor; what we have is little boys pretending to be men.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
this is getting confusing...
lazs
It sure is.... I disagree with one thing you wrote and you post 12 paragraphs on everything but that issue. LOL. Someone is confused.... I think it's you.