Posted on 02/02/2012 4:17:25 PM PST by fred4prez
Silly I may be but it certainly makes sense to me !
Your argument was as I summarized it -
Reagan developed politically in a liberal world, and hence was more liberal than a neo-Reagan would be, having acquired his politics in recent, more conservative times.
My argument summarized -
Reagans world was in reality closer to our vision of conservatism, in a cultural and ideological sense, than is the present day.
It is what I recall from the lectures on heresies, from many decades ago, by the sainted (or should be sainted) Brother Victor, our teacher in the Christian Brothers seminars. I was at one time recruited for that august order, though I proved to myself I was thoroughly unsuitable!
Basically, a heretic is a heretic, and as far as we are concerned he might as well be a Buddhist. They are no better or worse, and are just as likely to go to hell for unbelief, though I gather we have let up quite a bit on that last part.
As for the “special” case with Mormons, I gather its a recent tiff in retaliation for the business of retroactive baptisms. At this rate we will have to disinvite them from the bingo, take that !
That wasn’t it at all, I was pointing out that as President, Reagan could, and would, be much more conservative today.
By the way, why do you post so much on abortion and Romney, in his defense, but refuse to answer anything about yourself and abortion and the homosexual agenda?
Also, ignoring Santorum, I get the impression that Gingrich ranks below Romney to you, is that correct?
I didn't expect you to mock the Pope, and the Catholic church and it's faith.
You really are just making up things as you go.
I am completely against abortion, and homosexual behavior is a sin. I am an ordinary Catholic.
As far as Romney vs Gingrich - If you all were being as intemperate towards Gingrich as you have been towards Romney I would be saying the same things.
Gingrich is an extremely talented man, and he has a huge legislative achievement to his name. However, he is just as ideologically unsound and politically mutable as Romney. Neither is trustworthy, in an ideological sense, if their political prospects are at stake. He has never actually run anything.
Unfortunately we have no other real options, and the fate of the republic depends on voting for one or the other of them. The alternative is so immensely worse than either that disaster is staring us in the face. I am not voting for disaster.
Santorum is a consistent and trustworthy man, at least, in most ways. However he has all the political talent of the usual California Republican.
No I am not. Have you ever heard the clergy talk ?
That is precise it -
“I was pointing out that as President, Reagan could, and would, be much more conservative today.”
You said that this was because the political climate was more conservative now. I said that the ideological/cultural climate was more conservative then.
Yet you seem to rank Romney slightly over Gingrich in your previous post.
The 50s and 60s and 70s (actually, roughly 1935 to 1975, give or take)was a heyday for the left, the left’s victories are smaller, less permanent, and less frequent today.
Lyndon Johnson, the Warren Court, etc. did things with their own and JFK’s agenda, that could not be done today, and if those things had not happened, America would have survived, as it is, some of that past activity, killed our future.
Slightly as how ? By a comma or a full stop ? I am not aware of this.
Romney is a cold fish without an ounce of the “common touch” and he can easily become extremely unpopular. He is untrustworthy on the critical matters that a president actually controls (and policy towards abortion and homosexuality aren’t under his control). He is very likely to cave in a legislative crisis over the critical legislation we need to massively deregulate - if this isn’t done, quickly, we are toast. Romney has form here, he has caved more than once.
If he does bring a horde of Mormons into the white house that would be the best thing he could do, most of these fellows would probably be more competent than he is, have a solid group consciousness and derive confidence from it, and perhaps more inclined to purge the civil service and the regulators. I suspect though that he won’t have the guts to do it.
He would be a failure with the press from the first day.
Gingrich has a talent for directly annoying people, and though he can please the crowds on occasion, he is just as capable of falling on his face. All presidential candidates are almost pathologically arrogant, but he has the fault of letting it show. He could certainly also fail like I think Romney would, through a failure of nerve. He has form here too.
He has absolutely no track record with appointments that I can see, and brings no shadow cabinet or executive staff with him, which is a grievous fault.
He could, perhaps, conduct a successful rhetorical war with the press, but the odds of this succeeding are at best 50/50.
Both will TRY to appoint acceptable Supreme court judges. Who would do better at this ? i don’t know. Even Bush did quite well in the end, after much howling and gnashing of teeth, so we may be happily surprised.
1950-1964 - That covers the era when Reagan went from non-political actor to politician.
This was not the heyday of the left. The state was much smaller than it is today, the state intruded far less in the economy. Any manufacturer in the country would trade the regulatory conditions of 1955 for today in a heartbeat, even if they had to admit a union (1955 style).
As for cultural values, night and day. Those were the days when you could not distinguish a Democrat from a Republican on the subject of “vice”, divorce, or much else. You had a small avant-garde in pockets of the coasts but that was it.
When I read that, I see Newt and Rick as off the table for you.
I have always distrusted Gingrich.
I am leery of Romney.
Santorum has no political talent, or at least none thats effective at this level. Nobody will raise money for him - he doesn’t seem to know how to get people to do that chore for him. Thats not a good indicator of presidential timber.
Palin, Perry and Cain all could raise money.
It sounds like Romney sits atop Newt to you, if forced to choose.
Because I listed Romney first ?
Feel free to swap my Gingrich/Romney sections.
I’ve actually wondered about how many if his partners, associates, in business are not Mormons.
I would say a little more than that, by 1964, he was making history at the 1964 convention, Reagan first emerged nationally as a conservative in 1947, he testified as a friendly witness before the House of Un-American Activities Committee, already becoming known as on the right before that. By 1952, Reagan publicly endorsed Eisenhower in 1952, and then in 1956, and then for Nixon in 1960, and you know that he was earning a reputation as a conservative speaker in the late 1950s.
Yes, I know that, I was there. I too have read all the books.
The point is that back then we were all - even in San Francisco - “conservatives”, by modern standards.
Great gravy. In putting Romney on the pedestal, you're the one who said:
" Why does it matter why he did it? Do the people who shop at Goodwill care that someone donated clothes for a tax write off, or do they care that they have clothes?"
And I should assume that you, and nobody at FR, thought any less of Bill Clinton for donating used underwear to charity with a declared value of $3 per pair. Sometimes motive can lessen the value of a good deed, even if it remains a good deed. We see that when Democrats do something for the poor for the purpose of getting their vote.
As for it diminishing what happened, I believe we've already established in this thread that Romney and Bain played a part, but that what happened is not what is written in this piece-o-puffery email-sourced story that germinated in the mind of febrile Romney supporter. Yeah, I can just see Romney personally calling everyone Bain does business with in New York. At five minutes a call, that would take . . . a couple of weeks? Or until long after the girl was found?
"Feel free to swap my Gingrich/Romney sections.
Switch them how? You never mentioned Gingrich in that response, he and Santorum are clearly off the table as not as good as Romney, not "better", not even worth mentioning, they aren't even in the equation to you..
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.