Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bob Dole in Russell: Gen. David Petraeus should be GOP nominee for president
The Midwest Democracy Project ^ | June 12, 2011 | Steve Kraske

Posted on 06/13/2011 11:30:31 AM PDT by Nonstatist

Bob Dole didn’t hesitate this weekend out in Russell when asked who the Republican Party should nominate for president next year.

Gen. David Petraeus, Dole said, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan who’s about to become CIA director.

“We need another Eisenhower,” Dole said.

He also fretted that President Obama will build a huge warchest, and the GOP nominee will be essentially starting from scratch after the primaries are over next year.

That will give Obama a huge — but not necessarily an insurmountable edge, Dole said.

As to the Tea Party? Dole said he thought he was conservative until this group came along. He’s still trying to figure them out.

(Excerpt) Read more at midwestdemocracyproject.org ...


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2012gopprimary; dole; loser; petraeus; petraeus2012
As long as we don't end up with another Dole.
1 posted on 06/13/2011 11:30:38 AM PDT by Nonstatist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Nonstatist

Another Eisenhower would be just right.


2 posted on 06/13/2011 11:33:58 AM PDT by ex-snook ("Above all things, truth beareth away the victory")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nonstatist

Take another blue pill, Senator.
“I’m comin’ to join ya, Elizabeth”.


3 posted on 06/13/2011 11:37:28 AM PDT by Past Your Eyes (Honkies for Herman!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nonstatist

Most will be surprised that military brass, from what I hear, ain’t the most conservative bunch.


4 posted on 06/13/2011 11:37:35 AM PDT by frogjerk (Liberalism: The ideology of envy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nonstatist

We need something new. We need a president who will focus on domestic affairs, and focus on actually reducing the government. We’ve had great presidents in the past, but I don’t think we’ve ever had one that actively tried to force the government to do less as a long-term goal.


5 posted on 06/13/2011 11:38:19 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy (The USSR spent itself into bankruptcy and collapsed -- and aren't we on the same path now?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nonstatist

Eisenhower was right for the time and was a politician/administrative general, not a front-line commander. General officers are not all good choices for the role of president and are not all the right kind of leader for the nation. Attaining general officer rank is and has long been a mostly political process where connections and having senior sponsors drives who moves up and who does not. The most able do not always move up. Even Washington was not considered to be the best choice to lead the army by many of the politicians of the day. Anyone who would take an appointment from der Fuehrer would be suspect in my mind.


6 posted on 06/13/2011 11:39:30 AM PDT by RJS1950 (The democrats are the "enemies foreign and domestic" cited in the federal oath)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nonstatist

Bob,

I’ve never heard one single position of Petraeus other than how to defeat the muzzie enemy. At that he’s very good. Before I put my support behind him though I’ll need a little more info such as taxes, government sending etc...


7 posted on 06/13/2011 11:42:24 AM PDT by Old Teufel Hunden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nonstatist
As to the Tea Party? Dole said he thought he was conservative until this group came along. He’s still trying to figure them out.

Priceless.

8 posted on 06/13/2011 11:43:56 AM PDT by Crichton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RJS1950
"Anyone who would take an appointment from der Fuehrer would be suspect in my mind."

I can agree with a lot of what you said. However, this one I cannot. It's quite possible, nay probable that the reason he took on the job is that he does not want to see this country, the country he's served faithfully for 35 + years defeated because he doesn't like the President's policies.

I'm as conservative as you can get. However, if I was a General and knew that I had this military solution to the problem at hand. I would accept a command from Barry. Not for him, but for my country.
9 posted on 06/13/2011 11:47:19 AM PDT by Old Teufel Hunden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: frogjerk
Most will be surprised that military brass, from what I hear, ain’t the most conservative bunch.

Up to about Major most officers are conservatives. The education requirements for making full bird and getting a star means that they're mostly corrupted by the uber liberal universities. The system now is set up so that it's very difficult for a real warrior to make General. Nowadays perfumed princes who can play politics get promoted. (Colin Powell) Petraus is a rare exception, but that still doesn't mean he's a conservative politically.
10 posted on 06/13/2011 11:47:25 AM PDT by Tailback
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: frogjerk

Given what we know about Powell, it wouldn’t surprise me at all.


11 posted on 06/13/2011 11:48:52 AM PDT by edpc (I disagree. Circle gets the square.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: frogjerk

I worked with a retired Army Colonel and he was very, very liberal like pro-environmentalist and made remarks that 4x4 trails should be closed. He also wanted a return of the National Speed limit of 55 mph. He was from NJ and got his commission based on Rutgers ROTC. His wife was involved in Teacher Union politics as well.

A lot of them are not the brightest. A different place I worked at, the director was another retired Army colonel, a ring knocker from West Point. He also promoted a lot of liberal politics and he was very strict on dress code where you were required to wear a long sleeve shirt even when it is 100 degrees, no any kind of jeans. The dress code applied 24x7x365 at his facility.

> Most will be surprised that military brass, from what I hear, ain’t the most conservative bunch.


12 posted on 06/13/2011 11:49:03 AM PDT by CORedneck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ex-snook

We don’t need a moderate Republican ex-general. Eisenhower appointed SC justices Earn Warren and Thomas Brennan.


13 posted on 06/13/2011 11:50:03 AM PDT by bwc2221
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ex-snook

Eisenhower made the Roosevelt assault on America permanent. The country was ready for some rollback, only 8 years after Roosevelt died, and Eisenhower would have none of it. He was the Bush of his time.


14 posted on 06/13/2011 11:50:44 AM PDT by Defiant (When Democrats lose voters, they manufacture new voters instead of convincing the existing voters.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Tailback

I respectfully disagree with you. I know several birds and generals. Yes, they range from ultra conservative to moderate liberal.

I do not think any of that comes from the liberal exposure to their advanced education. I think a lot of it comes from the time in the field with their young troops.

The guys I know, from the Army at least, have come back more pragmatic and with a “live and let live” attitude about most every thing other than how to beat the muzzies. They speak highly of the young men and women and the amazing things they do.

I think because of their exposure to a more young workforce, they tend to pick up on some of their outlook.

Me, I hang around with other cynical bastards who think the world is going to hell in a handbasket.

Just a thought and observation.


15 posted on 06/13/2011 11:57:45 AM PDT by Vermont Lt (Is there anyone that Obama won't toss under the bus?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: bwc2221; Defiant

Sorry guys. I remember the Eisenhower years as some of the best for America. He ended the Korean war, built the interstate highway system and was scandal free. Just what we need today.


16 posted on 06/13/2011 12:02:46 PM PDT by ex-snook ("Above all things, truth beareth away the victory")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ex-snook
[Ike] ended the Korean war, built the interstate highway system and was scandal free.

Ah, don't you remember Sherman Adams and his vicuna coat?

Pure peanuts as scandals go today. But not "scandal free".

17 posted on 06/13/2011 12:12:50 PM PDT by okie01 (THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA: Ignorance On Parade)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Nonstatist

By all accounts Gen. Petraeus is a Democrat and about to be named DCI by Obama.

Unless he is changing his mind after being the subject of those “Betray Us” ads.


18 posted on 06/13/2011 12:14:23 PM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ex-snook
Not so sure about Eisenhower's Suez Canal policy.

And he slapped down McCarthy pretty badly.

Granted, I'm not thoroughly schooled about his involvement in these 2 areas, but what I've heard I don't like.

19 posted on 06/13/2011 12:16:27 PM PDT by Siena Dreaming
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog

“By all accounts Gen. Petraeus is a Democrat ...”

Then you will of course cite “all accounts” for us to review.

Thanks in advance.


20 posted on 06/13/2011 12:21:09 PM PDT by truth_seeker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: bwc2221
We don’t need a moderate Republican ex-general. Eisenhower appointed SC justices Earn Warren and Thomas Brennan.

Eisenhower said that Warren was one of the worst appointments he made.

A couple of strike outs after many singles, doubles, and as General, Grand Slams, doesn't diminsh Ike as one of the better Presidents.

21 posted on 06/13/2011 12:22:43 PM PDT by muleskinner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ex-snook

“He ended the Korean war, built the interstate highway system and was scandal free. Just what we need today.”

You forgot to mention “Operation Wetback” yes that was it’s name. Here’s just a little tidbit from wikipedia on this extremely successful operation:

“Some 750 agents targeted agricultural areas with a goal of 1,000 apprehensions per day. By the end of July, over 50,000 illegal aliens were caught in the two states. An estimated 488,000 illegal aliens are believed to have left voluntarily, for fear of being apprehended. By September, 80,000 had been taken into custody in Texas, and the INS estimated that 500,000 to 700,000 had left Texas of their own accord. To discourage illicit re-entry, buses and trains took many deportees deep within Mexican territory before releasing them.”

I would agree that another Eisenhower would be desirable but I don’t think Pratraeus is even close to Eisenhower’s league.


22 posted on 06/13/2011 12:35:19 PM PDT by Graneros (I want to go peacefully like my Dad did, in his sleep -- not screaming, like his passengers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Graneros
"I would agree that another Eisenhower would be desirable but I don’t think Pratraeus is even close to Eisenhower’s league."

Eisenhower would be a tough act to follow.

23 posted on 06/13/2011 12:42:39 PM PDT by ex-snook ("Above all things, truth beareth away the victory")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Nonstatist

Maybe Dole and Weiner can team up to do Viagra commercials.

You know.... kind of a before and after thing.


24 posted on 06/13/2011 12:51:27 PM PDT by Random Access
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nonstatist

Bob Who?


25 posted on 06/13/2011 12:58:19 PM PDT by Eagle Eye (A blind clock finds a nut at least twice a day.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Siena Dreaming

I’ve read by the end of his administration Ike realized he had been wrong about his policy toward Egypt.


26 posted on 06/13/2011 1:03:10 PM PDT by colorado tanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: ex-snook

As long as he doesn’t give another Earl Warren.


27 posted on 06/13/2011 1:06:47 PM PDT by ngat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Nonstatist

This is one of those threads that puzzle me. Why was it posted? Does anybody, anywhere, care what Dole thinks about anything?


28 posted on 06/13/2011 1:09:29 PM PDT by Do Be (The heart is smarter than the head.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nonstatist

“Hey, you Tea Party kids get off my lawn!”

Bless him, I’m getting old too.


29 posted on 06/13/2011 1:15:41 PM PDT by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: colorado tanker

Didn’t know that...thanks.


30 posted on 06/13/2011 1:22:20 PM PDT by Siena Dreaming
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Old Teufel Hunden; bwc2221; Defiant; Graneros

Generals for President? like Grant?
...and Eisenhower, was the cause of MUCH of the middle-east problems today.
if he had supported England in 1956...
the world would be totally different today.
for that alone, i rate Eisenhower the worst EVER.

...Wesly Clark is a joke. Colin Powell? ENDORSED Obama!

and Petraus, could have fought more against those INSANE ROE that are KILLING our own, while sparing the enemy. (instead, he supported those ROE, from what i read.)

if anything is worth losing your job over, it’s the lives of your men.

Colonel West had to make that choice, as did Petraeus.

Frankly, i’d follow that Colonel anywhere.
But the Rhinos want to draft Petraeus,
(or Huntsman, or Romney, or Perry, or ANYONE not a true conservative like West...)


31 posted on 06/13/2011 1:49:42 PM PDT by Elendur (the hope and change i need: Sarah / Colonel West in 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Nonstatist
As to the Tea Party? Dole said he thought he was conservative until this group came along.

Yeah, but we didn't. We thought of him as the "tax collect for the welfare state." Which is why he lost...

32 posted on 06/13/2011 1:51:27 PM PDT by Charles H. (The_r0nin) (Hwaet! Lar bith maest hord, sothlice!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vermont Lt

Perhaps you’re mixing social conservatism with constitutional originalist conservatism?

My experiences with senior officers in the active Army and National Guard is different. That’s OK, as long as we respectfully disagree we’re golden. I could tell you some shocking stories though and one former full bird did jail time. Maybe it’s because I live in Oregon and all the whackjobs in the world seem to end up here?


33 posted on 06/13/2011 2:13:32 PM PDT by Tailback
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Tailback

Ha ha. Liberal whackjobs? I live in MA. You would not have to school me in identifying liberal idiots!


34 posted on 06/13/2011 2:42:50 PM PDT by Vermont Lt (Is there anyone that Obama won't toss under the bus?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Nonstatist

I wouldn’t trust/accept any high military officer to be cognizant of my civilian experience unless he/she has publicly stated very clearly and convincingly that they believe the Constitution is still applicable for our modern world. I always thought of Ike as very, very good for stabilizing this Nation after the trauma of WWII. I also believe Ike gave very appropriate comments as to foreign involvements although I questioned him as to the crisis in Lebanon. Petraeus hasn’t shown me anything that brings him up to Ike.If we are in need of a military look for someone like Patton. Until then West stands out.


35 posted on 06/13/2011 4:38:52 PM PDT by noinfringers2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ex-snook
By your way of thinking, Clinton was our greatest President ever. The economy was better than ever, growth was high, employment was high, taxes were low.

Between 1945 and 1953, there was a movement among Republicans to undo what Roosevelt had done. Eisenhower settled it by accepting the welfare state as a done deal, rather than fight to be rid of it. He was pro business within the confines of the New Deal's assault on capitalism, and he was strong on defense. Just like Nixon, Rockefeller, romney, Ford and all the other country club Republicans. In fact, in those days, they really were country clubbers.

There was no conservative movement or internet then. Bill Buckley was still pimplefaced. If we had the intellectual underpinning and the means of communication then that we do now, we would have been opposing Eisenhower. His closest equivalent now is probably Evan Bayh or Romney.

36 posted on 06/13/2011 6:49:47 PM PDT by Defiant (When Democrats lose voters, they manufacture new voters instead of convincing the existing voters.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Nonstatist
This guy is still alive?

Amazing.

Next he'll be endorsing a baloney sandwich.

37 posted on 06/13/2011 6:52:33 PM PDT by Rome2000 (OBAMA IS A COMMUNIST CRYPTO-MUSLIM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Elendur

I dont consider Eisenhower the worst ever. He was far superior to the alternative. But with his moral authority, he could have rolled back F D R in socialism’s infancy, and he didnt want to. For that, I place a lot of the blame for America’s subsequent rot on him. Not to mention his judges.


38 posted on 06/13/2011 6:54:45 PM PDT by Defiant (When Democrats lose voters, they manufacture new voters instead of convincing the existing voters.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Nonstatist

Bless his little heart. There’s a reason BobDole never became US President.


39 posted on 06/13/2011 6:55:10 PM PDT by FourPeas ("Maladjusted and wigging out is no way to go through life, son." -hg)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Elendur

Just to be clear, I am not in support of Petraeus for President. How can I be? I’ve never heard him take one position on any of the important issues of the day. It would be insane to support a man when you haven’t heard one of his positions.

As for that ROE. That was in place in Afghnistan while the former chucklehead was running the show. I believe that since Petraeus was put in, they have changed the ROE.


40 posted on 06/14/2011 5:23:07 AM PDT by Old Teufel Hunden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Defiant
"By your way of thinking, Clinton was our greatest President ever. The economy was better than ever, growth was high, employment was high, taxes were low. "

And you might add budget was balanced. But post Reagan, Clinton's administration stands out except his wag the dog bombing aspirin factories.

But back to conservatism. Bob Taft was the opposition Republican and was beaten down by the Eastern Rockefeller wing.

You have a good grasp on what is happening. Everyone in the GOP claims 'conservative'. What do you see as the bedrock positions to define today's conservative? Appreciate your thoughts.

41 posted on 06/14/2011 7:22:56 AM PDT by ex-snook ("Above all things, truth beareth away the victory")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: ex-snook
Everyone in the GOP claims 'conservative'. What do you see as the bedrock positions to define today's conservative? Appreciate your thoughts.

My aspiration is to dismantle what FDR did to the country, and restore constitutional government. (I say FDR and not Wilson, because what Wilson was largely dismantled in the 1920s. That's where we need to be). To overturn all the judicial opinions that created non-existent rights, and to eliminate progressivism from our governance. What progressivism is is mob rule and will lead ultimately to the rule of men instead of law, of tribes instead of Americans.

It will take an effort encompassing decades, not a few congresses, to accomplish what I would like to see our country achieve. It will require incremental gains, occasional setbacks, but a movement that always works towards restoration of the US Constitution, the most perfect form of government ever devised.

We can't eliminate medicare and social security overnight, and it will take decades to weed through all the substantive laws that derive from corruption of the Interstate Commerce Clause and the "necessary and proper" clause. It will take education of the legislators as to their proper role, and it will take prolonged education of the citizenry as to what to expect of government. The entire electorate will have to be weaned off the government teat. It will take efforts of citizens at every level, especially in retaking the "commanding heights" of a society, the schools, board rooms, local and state governments, media and arts, so that people who have been propagandized for 80 years can learn the truth about their country, about their government, about what works in an economy and what misplaced compassion does to the society. Frankly, I am not sure we have the committed cadre of people who have the will to see our cause through that the progressives have had to force their cause on us, but I believe that great leaders can help bring about societal change, and that there are enough good people still remaining in the core of our country that with such leadership, it can happen.

So, when I look at who I support as a conservative, it is with those goals in mind. Will they advance the ball towards constitutional government, or will they be mere caretakers for the socialist progressive movement. Caretakers, people like Mitt Romney is and Eisenhower was, are generally better as Presidents because they don't make things worse, but they squander opportunities to move the ball back to where it belongs. When they win nominations, I generally end up voting for them, because at least the ball isn't advancing farther towards that communist goal line that indicates that America as a constitutional republic is over. But sometimes, you have to give ground to get it back, and I am not sure that always supporting the lesser of two evils when both are progressive at heart is the way to go. It may at times delay the day when a conservative alternative is launched. Such would be the case for me this time if Romney is nominated. That tells me it is time for conservatives to go with a new party, and try to wipe out the Republicans, in this election or the next one. In Eisenhower's era, holding the line against the socialists still left America in a pretty decent place. Holding the line against what Obama has done is like accepting a situation that is just a nudge away from the death of freedom, and will let the next Obama tip us over. And I can't accept that. Now without fighting.

Moderates, guys whose hearts are in the right place but who can be easily swayed by pressure and the tactics of Alinsky followers, are dangerous. Moderation is a state of mind, and it tells them that they have to respect the views of those on the other side. I say, no we don't, not when the other side ultimately seeks our enslavement.

Moderates, like George Bush, start out sounding conservative, and then at some point, they just give in and let the Washington Post tell them what to do. They end up sometimes advancing the ball FOR progressives, as the TARP bill did. People like Pawlenty, Gingrich, and maybe Santorum, are in this category. They scare me. They would probably get my vote, but I would deathly fear them once they get into office, and we would have to not relax the pressure on them and just assume they will do what they said they would. None of this "No Child Left Behind" and reaching across the aisle. Go nuts and stop it, the way we eventually did with Harriet Meiers and Immigration Reform.

I look at a conservative's positions and their lifetime history of holding fast to their convictions. I want to know how they formed their world view, and is it based on electoral winds or on something in their lives that educated them to Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek on economic matters, whether they have a strategic vision that has America's security as the primary interest and understands how to maintain it in a world with real threats, like Islamic terrorists and Chinese communists. Do they pay lip service to Islam as a religion of peace, or do they not fall for that claptrap? Their stands on immigration, judicial appointments, cutting the budget, oil drilling and exploration, tax rates, and eliminating ObamaCare, are all important factors that I look at to determine whether this is a sincere conservative that we can trust to move the ball back towards constitutional government. I am also hoping for a great salesman and leader, for without that, you may have great positions, but end up like George Bush at 15% approval. That doesn't help the cause, either.

Right now, the communists have the ball on the 7 yard line, 2nd and goal to go. The 2010 election was a sack and a loss of 3 yards. They are still close to punching it in. We have to get the ball back, and then we have a VERY long march downfield just to get back to Coolidge 1925. That's where I want to be. That's a TD for me.

The candidates who meet the qualifications that I am looking for of conservative positions coupled with steadfast and implacable world views and leadership skills are: Michelle Bachmann (her hiring of Ed Rollins has me worried, though); Herman Cain; and Sarah Palin. I am not sure about Rick Santorum, but I don't think he'll be around long enough to worry about anyway. My ideal President would be Jim DeMint, but he's not running. I hope whoever is nominated picks him to be VP. I also like Rush a great deal, and wish he would look into running, but it does not seem like he wants to do that. I think the times demand people that can educate, and he can take on the media like no one else. I don't care that he got hooked on pain pills. Our president was a cokehead. Does he really want to bring that up?

You asked, so I have given my long-winded response.

42 posted on 06/14/2011 12:52:48 PM PDT by Defiant (When Democrats lose voters, they manufacture new voters instead of convincing the existing voters.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Defiant

Thanks for all the effort you put into your post. I’ll have to take time to digest it all! A quick read puts the country going off track with Wilson and then Roosevelt, eras of war and economic depression. Perhaps the ‘eras’ the country passes through are even more of a driver than the personalities of the times. A bigger central government becomes the problem solver of last resort.

Maybe ultimately ‘we can’t go back’ because of the recurrent happenings of war and economic difficulties. It seems so in Western civilization countries. Perhaps today’s breed of conservatives know how to break or dilute the results of war and economic troubles. Just reducing the size of government absent the reasons for big government, may be just wishing thinking. Thanks again for your thoughtful reply.


43 posted on 06/14/2011 1:16:18 PM PDT by ex-snook ("Above all things, truth beareth away the victory")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: ex-snook

You don’t have to go back, you just have to pass amendments to the things that need to be changed. There is not much I can think of that needs to be amended to allow the federal government to do things I want it to do. FDR’s era added nothing that we need to keep. LBJ’s era added nothing that we need to keep. Nixon, with his EPA, Carter with his Dept. of Education, and Clinton and Obama, added nothing that we need to keep. Limited government is still enough to maintain America as a superpower. Restoring prosperity makes us even stronger, as a matter of fact. If you can point to anything that we need to keep, please do so. I will let you know what I think. The times didn’t demand socialism, the times overcame the failure of socialism.


44 posted on 06/14/2011 1:22:56 PM PDT by Defiant (When Democrats lose voters, they manufacture new voters instead of convincing the existing voters.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Defiant
"If you can point to anything that we need to keep, please do so."

We need to keep whatever can deal with wars, big and small, and economic depressions, big and small. I see China as our biggest threat, both military and economic.

45 posted on 06/14/2011 1:36:41 PM PDT by ex-snook ("Above all things, truth beareth away the victory")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: ex-snook
You mean like the Civil War?

The Constitution provides that Congress has the power to raise armies, and declare war. The President is the commander in chief. Nothing needs to be changed to allow us to defend ourselves and maintain a world presence.

As to dealing with economic depression, federal involvement in the economy sometimes creates them, and involvement in mitigating them only makes them worse. A good primer for you would be "The Forgotten Man". Get it on Amazon, read it, and then see if you still think we need the federal government to "deal with economic depressions, big and small". If you do, then you have been in the wrong place for 13 years. You would be a follower of JM Keynes.

While you are at it, brush up on Hayek, "The Road to Serfdom". I say this not to be condescending, but if you have not read it, you may not understand the basis of my positions. If you read it and you are still Keynesian, then we have issues. You and Krugman would be closer politically.

46 posted on 06/14/2011 1:46:33 PM PDT by Defiant (When Democrats lose voters, they manufacture new voters instead of convincing the existing voters.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Defiant
"If you read it and you are still Keynesian"

Hey I agree with Keynes to the extent 'that in the long run we will all be dead'. Market solutions that say 'eventually' don't work in a political democracy where the long run ends on election day and people vote on how well they are doing - majority wins and the worse it is, the more non-conservatives win. As far as war goes I want a government military that is too big too fail. My eye is on China and we won't have time to mobilize, speed is of the essence.

47 posted on 06/14/2011 2:15:23 PM PDT by ex-snook ("Above all things, truth beareth away the victory")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: ex-snook
I don't agree with a word of that. We can have a topflight military while following the Constitution, and Keynes was wrong about everything, theological and economic. In the very long run, we are either with our Lord or we are not. That point is sort of related to economics, as a moral people are also more efficient and therefore spend less money on things like lawyers, prisons, home security and third wives. Our system was designed for a moral nation. The desire for short term pleasures is a big part of the problem. Pandering to short termers is not going to be good for the country........in the long run. In the long run, I want my grandchildren to live free, and in the short term, i will fight for that long term goal.

Keynes is not the cause of our troubles, he is just the guy who gave liberals a theory justifying big spending programs. Does it matter to you that they never have, and could never, work?

48 posted on 06/14/2011 3:49:22 PM PDT by Defiant (When Democrats lose voters, they manufacture new voters instead of convincing the existing voters.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Defiant
" I don't agree with a word of that."

I hope Americans agree in future elections. Regards,

49 posted on 06/15/2011 7:53:28 AM PDT by ex-snook ("Above all things, truth beareth away the victory")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson