Of course, you mean, “from the party,” not “from the country/world.”
Right?
But if your agenda is on that scale, that is not something that can be dissociated from social or cultural politics. Remember, the effects of, e.g., eliminating affirmative action or food stamps or HEAD START also come under the heading of both social and cultural politics. And nobody’s gonna believe, either, nor should believe, that you’re eliminating such things just to reduce the size of government.
And Reagan.
What we need is some way to get them out of the party for good. A “final solution” if you will.
Don’t try to box him in with your nanny-state, squish, establishmentarianism!
LOL. Nicely done.
I love it when folks from the opposite end of the political spectrum make your point for you.
Yet somehow, your leaders seem to be social conservatives. This piece is from 2010, but nothing has changed as far as this is concerned.
What it would take is something the “moderate,” by definition, does not possess.
In fact, the reason so many on the left are sometimes willing to speak well of the “moderate” is simply because they easily bend in the direction of forceful political winds. They cannot endure demagoguery, which is a major tool of the left.
Appeasement - it is inherent in their nature.
No, what characterizes the “moderates” is not easily bending in the direction of forceful political winds.
What characterizes the “extremists,” left and right, is blowing those winds.
The trouble is, the moderates are the well, or at least better informed. The hard-liners are generally horribly misinformed by RW media lies and misinformation.
Leaving a party primarily composed of delusional people who are driven by a false version of reality isn’t good for the country.
Let’s see if we can make a connection here:
Fiscal morality - that politicos would conduct the “peoples business” in a way that preserves their hard earned tax dollars for justifiable causes, away from corrupt cronyism.
‘Character’ is paramount to responsible and dependable leadership.
“Look, we saw in Britain, Neville Chamberlain, who told the British people, ‘Accept the Nazis. Yes, they’ll dominate the continent of Europe, but that’s not our problem. Let’s appease them. Why? Because it can’t be done. We can’t possibly stand against them.’ And in America there were voices that listened to that. I expect those same pundits who say it can’t be done, had it been in the 1940s, we would have listened to them.”
-Ted Cruz, a major tool on the right.
Nothing.
There is no party.
Only a crater.
New party needed, apply within.
. . . OK, nobody would argue with that so stated. But it has nothing to do with balancing the budget. It has nothing to do with generation of revenue. And it has nothing to do with eliminating or reducing any particular government expense or program or function.
See above.
So just where is the fiscal conservatism (not at all the same thing as your “fiscal morality”) here?
Mischaracterized, on both counts.
Moderate - average, nothing extraordinary in him to remain ‘steadfast’ when tested. Therefore, he is coddled by the more ‘extreme’ for he is perceived to be, for lack of a better term, ‘in play.’
“Extremists” are the winds!
Blowing - the temperament of political rhetoric…
Nixon was (by the standards of today’s GOP) very moderate, and very steadfast. (Which does not necessarily speak well of steadfast.)
[quote=“BrainGlutton, post:94, topic:670191”]
. . . OK, nobody would argue with that so stated. But it has nothing to do with balancing the budget. It has nothing to do with generation of revenue. And it has nothing to do with eliminating or reducing any particular government expense or program or function.
[QUOTE]
REALLY? I’m starting to you believe you don’t get it at all.
[QUOTE]
[See above.QUOTE]
Reading it once was plenty. But maybe I missed the punch line or something…
What you need to do is read some real American history - Calvin Coolidge and what his administration accomplished during his term in office. It takes far more than brains and wise counsel to accomplish what really needs to be done with America’s budget. It take someone with real guts and honesty to tell the American people the truth: unless we take harsh measures and cut government spending - DRAMATICALLY ACROSS THE BOARD, we will experience what it’s like to become a third world country.
Okay, add Conservian to those who didn’t read the OP. Again, we know many of you think moderates are poopyheads, and others think that all Republicans are vampires. You’ve let us know that before. That’s not the OP’s question.
My guess: the tea partyists will continue to purge all the sniveling compromisers, who will either swell the ranks of the Democrats or (more likely) turn independent. At some point, there will be so many unaffiliated moderate conservatives that they will start fielding candidates, hopefully under a new name (I suggest The Moderate Conservative Party), and many conservative Democrats will join it. The Republican Party will shrivel into a third party gadfly organization.
Can’t come too soon for me.
You brought him up, you tell us.
Look around the world at the First-World countries, the fully industrialized ones, the places where things in general mostly go as well as or better than in the U.S. One thing you won’t find in any of them is minimal government. That’s something you’ll find in some Third-World countries whose governments are minimal because they are ineffectual.