According to the New York Times' Editorial Board, this is what passes for wisdom:
'Bob Dole no longer recognizes the Republican Party that he helped lead for years. Speaking over the weekend on “Fox News Sunday,” he said his party should hang a “closed for repairs” sign on its doors until it comes up with a few positive ideas, because neither he nor Ronald Reagan would now feel comfortable in its membership.'
As President Reagan would say, 'There he goes, again.'
What is it about Republicans like Senator Bob Dole and Senator John McCain, who have suffered suffered grievously from injuries inflicted by real enemies in foreign wars, that make them attack their own or honest, hard-working 'Hobbits' and 'whackobirds'? What is it about them that causes them to lie - and, I mean, LIE - about Ronald Reagan?
Ronald Reagan wouldn't be at home in today's Republican Party? Perhaps, but that's more because of people like Bob Dole and John McCain than Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. He'd be at home in the Tea Party. Don't take my word for it. Please allow the man to speak for himself:
‘Since our last meeting we have been through a disastrous election. It is easy for us to be discouraged, as pundits hail that election as a repudiation of our philosophy and even as a mandate of some kind or other. If there was anything like a mandate, it will be found among almost two-thirds of the citizens who refused to participate.
Bitter as it is to accept the results of the November election, we should have reason for some optimism. For many years now we have preached "the gospel," in opposition to the philosophy of so-called liberalism which was, in truth, a call to collectivism.
Now, it is possible we have been persuasive to a greater degree than we had ever realized. Few, if any, Democratic Party candidates in the last election ran as liberals. Listening to them I had the eerie feeling we were hearing reruns of Goldwater speeches. I even thought I heard a few of my own.
Bureaucracy was assailed and fiscal responsibility hailed. Even George McGovern donned sackcloth and ashes and did penance for the good people of South Dakota.
But let’s not be so naive as to think we are witnessing a mass conversion to the principles of conservatism. Once sworn into office, the victors reverted to type. In their view, apparently, the ends justified the means.
The "Young Turks" had campaigned against "evil politicians." They turned against committee chairmen of their own party, displaying a taste and talent as cutthroat power politicians quite in contrast to their campaign rhetoric and idealism. Still, we must not forget that they molded their campaigning to fit what even they recognized was the mood of the majority. And we must see to it that the people are reminded of this as they now pursue their ideological goals -- and pursue them they will.
I know you are aware of the national polls which show that a greater (and increasing) number of Americans -- Republicans, Democrats and independents -- classify themselves as "conservatives" than ever before. And a poll of rank-and-file union members reveals dissatisfaction with the amount of power their own leaders have assumed, and a resentment of their use of that power for partisan politics. Would it shock you to know that in that poll 68 percent of rank-and-file union members of this country came out endorsing right-to-work legislation?
These polls give cause for some optimism, but at the same time reveal a confusion that exists and the need for a continued effort to "spread the word."
In another recent survey, of 35,000 college and university students polled, three-fourths blame American business and industry for all of our economic and social ills. The same three-fourths think the answer is more (and virtually complete) regimentation and government control of all phases of business -- including the imposition of wage and price controls. Yet, 80 percent in the same poll want less government interference in their own lives!
In 1972 the people of this country had a clear-cut choice, based on the issues -- to a greater extent than any election in half a century. In overwhelming numbers they ignored party labels, not so much to vote for a man or even a policy as to repudiate a philosophy. In doing so they repudiated that final step into the welfare state -- that call for the confiscation and redistribution of their earnings on a scale far greater than what we now have. They repudiated the abandonment of national honor and a weakening of this nation's ability to protect itself.
A study has been made that is so revealing that I’m not surprised it has been ignored by a certain number of political commentators and columnists. The political science department of Georgetown University researched the mandate of the 1972 election and recently presented its findings at a seminar.
Taking several major issues which, incidentally, are still the issues of the day, they polled rank-and-file members of the Democratic party on their approach to these problems. Then they polled the delegates to the two major national conventions -- the leaders of the parties.
They found the delegates to the Republican convention almost identical in their responses to those of the rank-and-file Republicans. Yet, the delegates to the Democratic convention were miles apart from the thinking of their own party members.
The mandate of 1972 still exists. The people of America have been confused and disturbed by events since that election, but they hold an unchanged philosophy.
Our task is to make them see that what we represent is identical to their own hopes and dreams of what America can and should be. If there are questions as to whether the principles of conservatism hold up in practice, we have the answers to them. Where conservative principles have been tried, they have worked. Gov. Meldrim Thomson is making them work in New Hampshire; so is Arch Moore in West Virginia and Mills Godwin in Virginia. Jack Williams made them work in Arizona and I'm sure Jim Edwards will in South Carolina.
If you will permit me, I can recount my own experience in California.
When I went to Sacramento eight years ago, I had the belief that government was no deep, dark mystery, that it could be operated efficiently by using the same common sense practiced in our everyday life, in our homes, in business and private affairs.
The "lab test" of my theory – California -- was pretty messed up after eight years of a road show version of the Great Society. Our first and only briefing came from the outgoing director of finance, who said: "We’re spending $1 million more a day than we're taking in. I have a golf date. Good luck!" That was the most cheerful news we were to hear for quite some time.
California state government was increasing by about 5,000 new employees a year. We were the welfare capital of the world with 16 percent of the nation's caseload. Soon, California’s caseload was increasing by 40,000 a month.
We turned to the people themselves for help. Two hundred and fifty experts in the various fields volunteered to serve on task forces at no cost to the taxpayers. They went into every department of state government and came back with 1,800 recommendations on how modern business practices could be used to make government more efficient. We adopted 1,600 of them.
We instituted a policy of "cut, squeeze and trim" and froze the hiring of employees as replacements for retiring employees or others leaving state service.
After a few years of struggling with the professional welfarists, we again turned to the people. First, we obtained another task force and, when the legislature refused to help implement its recommendations, we presented the recommendations to the electorate.
It still took some doing. The legislature insisted our reforms would not work; that the needy would starve in the streets; that the workload would be dumped on the counties; that property taxes would go up and that we'd run up a deficit the first year of $750 million.
That was four years ago. Today, the needy have had an average increase of 43 percent in welfare grants in California, but the taxpayers have saved $2 billion by the caseload not increasing that 40,000 a month. Instead, there are some 400,000 fewer on welfare today than then.
Forty of the state’s 58 counties have reduced property taxes for two years in a row (some for three). That $750-million deficit turned into an $850-million surplus which we returned to the people in a one-time tax rebate. That wasn’t easy. One state senator described that rebate as "an unnecessary expenditure of public funds."
For more than two decades governments -- federal, state, local -- have been increasing in size two-and-a-half times faster than the population increase. In the last 10 years they have increased the cost in payroll seven times as fast as the increase in numbers.
We have just turned over to a new administration in Sacramento a government virtually the same size it was eight years ago. With the state’s growth rate, this means that government absorbed a workload increase, in some departments as much as 66 percent.
We also turned over -- for the first time in almost a quarter of a century -- a balanced budget and a surplus of $500 million. In these eight years just passed, we returned to the people in rebates, tax reductions and bridge toll reductions $5.7 billion. All of this is contrary to the will of those who deplore conservatism and profess to be liberals, yet all of it is pleasing to its citizenry.
Make no mistake, the leadership of the Democratic party is still out of step with the majority of Americans.
Speaker Carl Albert recently was quoted as saying that our problem is "60 percent recession, 30 percent inflation and 10 percent energy." That makes as much sense as saying two and two make 22.
Without inflation there would be no recession. And unless we curb inflation we can see the end of our society and economic system. The painful fact is we can only halt inflation by undergoing a period of economic dislocation -- a recession, if you will.
We can take steps to ease the suffering of some who will be hurt more than others, but if we turn from fighting inflation and adopt a program only to fight recession we are on the road to disaster.
In his first address to Congress, the president asked Congress to join him in an all-out effort to balance the budget. I think all of us wish that he had re-issued that speech instead of this year’s budget message.
What side can be taken in a debate over whether the deficit should be $52 billion or $70 billion or $80 billion preferred by the profligate Congress?
Inflation has one cause and one cause only: government spending more than government takes in. And the cure to inflation is a balanced budget. We know, of course, that after 40 years of social tinkering and Keynesian experimentation that we can’t do this all at once, but it can be achieved. Balancing the budget is like protecting your virtue: you have to learn to say "no."
This is no time to repeat the shopworn panaceas of the New Deal, the Fair Deal and the Great Society. John Kenneth Galbraith, who, in my opinion, is living proof that economics is an inexact science, has written a new book. It is called "Economics and the Public Purpose." In it, he asserts that market arrangements in our economy have given us inadequate housing, terrible mass transit, poor health care and a host of other miseries. And then, for the first time to my knowledge, he advances socialism as the answer to our problems.
Shorn of all side issues and extraneous matter, the problem underlying all others is the worldwide contest for the hearts and minds of mankind. Do we find the answers to human misery in freedom as it is known, or do we sink into the deadly dullness of the Socialist ant heap?
Those who suggest that the latter is some kind of solution are, I think, open to challenge. Let’s have no more theorizing when actual comparison is possible. There is in the world a great nation, larger than ours in territory and populated with 250 million capable people. It is rich in resources and has had more than 50 uninterrupted years to practice socialism without opposition.
We could match them, but it would take a little doing on our part. We’d have to cut our paychecks back by 75 percent; move 60 million workers back to the farm; abandon two-thirds of our steel-making capacity; destroy 40 million television sets; tear up 14 of every 15 miles of highway; junk 19 of every 20 automobiles; tear up two-thirds of our railroad track; knock down 70 percent of our houses; and rip out nine out of every 10 telephones. Then, all we have to do is find a capitalist country to sell us wheat on credit to keep us from starving!
Our people are in a time of discontent. Our vital energy supplies are threatened by possibly the most powerful cartel in human history. Our traditional allies in Western Europe are experiencing political and economic instability bordering on chaos.
We seem to be increasingly alone in a world grown more hostile, but we let our defenses shrink to pre-Pearl Harbor levels. And we are conscious that in Moscow the crash build-up of arms continues. The SALT II agreement in Vladivostok, if not re-negotiated, guarantees the Soviets a clear missile superiority sufficient to make a "first strike" possible, with little fear of reprisal. Yet, too many congressmen demand further cuts in our own defenses, including delay if not cancellation of the B-1 bomber.
I realize that millions of Americans are sick of hearing about Indochina, and perhaps it is politically unwise to talk of our obligation to Cambodia and South Vietnam. But we pledged -- in an agreement that brought our men home and freed our prisoners -- to give our allies arms and ammunition to replace on a one-for-one basis what they expend in resisting the aggression of the Communists who are violating the cease-fire and are fully aided by their Soviet and Red Chinese allies. Congress has already reduced the appropriation to half of what they need and threatens to reduce it even more.
Can we live with ourselves if we, as a nation, betray our friends and ignore our pledged word? And, if we do, who would ever trust us again? To consider committing such an act so contrary to our deepest ideals is symptomatic of the erosion of standards and values. And this adds to our discontent.
We did not seek world leadership; it was thrust upon us. It has been our destiny almost from the first moment this land was settled. If we fail to keep our rendezvous with destiny or, as John Winthrop said in 1630, "Deal falsely with our God," we shall be made "a story and byword throughout the world."
Americans are hungry to feel once again a sense of mission and greatness.
I don 't know about you, but I am impatient with those Republicans who after the last election rushed into print saying, "We must broaden the base of our party" -- when what they meant was to fuzz up and blur even more the differences between ourselves and our opponents.
It was a feeling that there was not a sufficient difference now between the parties that kept a majority of the voters away from the polls. When have we ever advocated a closed-door policy? Who has ever been barred from participating?
Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?
Let us show that we stand for fiscal integrity and sound money and above all for an end to deficit spending, with ultimate retirement of the national debt.
Let us also include a permanent limit on the percentage of the people's earnings government can take without their consent.
Let our banner proclaim a genuine tax reform that will begin by simplifying the income tax so that workers can compute their obligation without having to employ legal help.
And let it provide indexing -- adjusting the brackets to the cost of living -- so that an increase in salary merely to keep pace with inflation does not move the taxpayer into a surtax bracket. Failure to provide this means an increase in government's share and would make the worker worse off than he was before he got the raise.
Let our banner proclaim our belief in a free market as the greatest provider for the people. Let us also call for an end to the nit-picking, the harassment and over-regulation of business and industry which restricts expansion and our ability to compete in world markets.
Let us explore ways to ward off socialism, not by increasing government’s coercive power, but by increasing participation by the people in the ownership of our industrial machine.
Our banner must recognize the responsibility of government to protect the law-abiding, holding those who commit misdeeds personally accountable.
And we must make it plain to international adventurers that our love of peace stops short of "peace at any price."
We will maintain whatever level of strength is necessary to preserve our free way of life.
A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers.
I do not believe I have proposed anything that is contrary to what has been considered Republican principle. It is at the same time the very basis of conservatism. It is time to reassert that principle and raise it to full view. And if there are those who cannot subscribe to these principles, then let them go their way.
- Ronald Reagan, Speech to Young Americans for Freedom/CPAC, 1975
Yeah, that sounds EXACTLY like Bob Dole is saying!!! Snort.
In 1980, people like Dole called Reagan ‘too extreme to ever get elected’ and Bush the Elder labeled his economic policies 'Voodoo Economics.'
Let’s take a look at how Dole’s ‘type’ of Republicans, including himself, has performed over the years:
1976 Republican Presidential Primary:
Ford: 5,529,899, 27 states, 53.3%
Reagan: 4,760,222, 23 states, 45.9%
I don’t have the breakdown, but Republican Hispanics broke for Reagan in the primary.
1976 Presidential Election:
Carter: 297 EVs, 40,831,881, 23 states + DC, 82% of the Hispanic vote
Ford: 240 EVs, 39,148,634, 27 states, 18% of the Hispanic vote
1980 Presidential Election:
Reagan: 489 EVs, 43,903,230, 44 states won, 37% of the Hispanic vote
Carter: 49 EVs, 35,480,115, 6 states + DC, 56% of the Hispanic vote
1984 Presidential Election:
Reagan: 525 EVs, 54,455,472, 49 states won, 34.82% of the Hispanic vote
Mondale: 13 EVs, 37,577,352, 1 state + DC, 66% of the Hispanic vote
1988 Presidential Election:
Bush: 426 EVs, 48,886,097, 40 states won, 30.85% of the Hispanic vote
Dukakis: 11 EVs, 41,809,074, 10 states + DC, 70.15% of the Hispanic vote
1992 Presidential Election:
Clinton: 370 EVs, 44,909,806, 32 + DC, 61% vote of the Hispanic
Bush: 168 EVs, 39,104,550, 18 states, 25% vote of the Hispanic
1996 Presidential Election:
Clinton: 379 EVs, 47,401,185, 31 + DC, 72% of the Hispanic vote
Dole: 159 EVs, 39,197,469, 19 states, 21% of the Hispanic vote (worse than even that ‘extreme Conservative,’ Mitt Romney!)
2000 Presidential Election:
Bush: 271 EVs, 50,456,002, 30 states, 35% of the Hispanic vote
Gore: 266 EVs, 50,999,897, 20 states + DC, 62% of the Hispanic vote
2004 Presidential Election:
Bush: 286 EVs, 62,040,610, 31 states, 40% of the Hispanic vote
Kerry: 251 EVs, 59,028,444, 19 + DC, 58% of the Hispanic vote
2008 Presidential Election:
Obama: 365 EVs, 69,498,516, 28 + DC + NE-02, 67% of the Hispanic vote
McCain: 173 EVs, 59,948,323, 22 states, 31% of the Hispanic vote
2012 Presidential Election:
Obama: 332 EVs, 65,907,213, 26 + DC, 71% of the Hispanic vote
Romney: 206 EVs, 60,931,767, 24 states, 27% of the Hispanic vote
The following is from a piece that I've been working on and off (more off of late) for the last month or so called 'Rubin's Rump.' Now that
former President Bob Dole the worst-performing
Republican Presidential candidate since Barry Goldwater in 1964, who didn’t
have to deal with the fear-mongering and depraved and disgusting slander that
the Democrats and MSM assaulted Goldwater with, perhaps, it's time that I do
finish it. Anyhoo, keep in mind that it is still a work-in-progress as
'I'm not going to bequeath even a modicum of honour by quoting from 'Conservative' Jennifer Rubin's article, but if you are so inclined, read it: Tear Down This Icon: Why The GOP Has To Get Over RonaldReagan. The title of the piece tells you all that you really need to know about her diatribe laid out over four pages.
People like Jennifer Rubin have been saying the same thing about conservativism and libertarianism, in general, forever. In the wake of Barry Goldwater's disastrous defeat in 1964, the Rockefeller wing of the Republican Party said 'We told you so!' Of course, they not only exemplified the 'Me-too!'-ism that made the Republican Party a Rump Party for much of FDR's disastrous 'bold, persistent, experimentation' - 'It if fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something...do something...anything!' - which led his own Treasury Secretary to pronounce its utter bankrupt failure in 1939, they embraced Big Government Liberalism.
Furthermore, the Republican Party, especially the Rockefeller Branch, ignorantly failed to realise that President Johnson took a page directly out of Woodrow Wilson's playbook. In 1916, Wilson's reelection slogan was 'He kept us out of the war!' and he accused his opponent, the formidable, and favourite, Charles Evan Hughes, who had honestly, but albeit unfortunately, admitted that he would be unlikely to be able to keep the United States out of the war, of being a warmonger.
Wilson won reelection on 7 November 1917 and was sworn in on 5 March 1917. He asked for a formal declaration of war on Germany 29 days later…as he always intended, of course. Likewise, President Johnson portrayed Senator Goldwater as an unhinged Fascist that would start a nuclear war.
'These are the stakes. To make a world in which all of God's children can live...or to go into the dark. We don't want our American boys to do the fighting for Asian boys. We don't want to get tied down in a land war in Asia.'
- President Lyndon Baines Johnson, in the infamous 'Daisy Ad'
Of course, LBJ made no mention of the fact that his own Pentagon was drawing up plans to send more than 1,000,000 American boys into the jungles of Southeast Asia where more than 58,000 would lose their lives and hundreds of thousands would be maimed for life.
While his infamous 'daisy ad' only ran once, it was hardly the most heinous, Lyndon Johnson translated the heinous and odious charge made by Harry Truman that his liberal Republican opponent, Thomas Dewey was "the front man for the same sort of 'powerful reactionary forces' that orchestrated the rise of Hitler in Germany into a campaign of slander against Barry Goldwater, casting him as a crypto-Nazi emissary of 'hate.'” his media consultants, the 'objective' journalists in the MSM, made sure that it was seen by every American multiple times.
And, if that wasn't enough to Palinise him in the year that she was born, left-wing, smear-merchants like Daniel Schorr came right out and accused a sitting United States Senator of Jewish descent of joining forces with the German 'right-wing'...
'It looks as though Senator Goldwater, if nominated, will be starting his campaign here in Bavaria, center of Germany's right wing...Hitler's one-time stomping ground. [In an interview with Der Spiegel, Goldwater] has appealed to right-wing elements in Germany and has agreed to speak to a meeting of right-wing Germans. Thus, there are signs that the American and German right wings are joining up.'
- Daniel Schorr, CBS News, 12 July 1964
As Andrew Ferguson wrote in the Weekly Standard's June 2001 edition, 'THOUGH EASILY CHECKABLE, [SCHORR'S REPORT] WAS FALSE IN ALL ITS PARTICULARS. Goldwater had spoken vaguely of vacationing in Europe, but had made no plans to visit Germany. Goldwater's interview in Der Spiegel was a reprint of an interview that had appeared elsewhere, and he had not even considered addressing the group Schorr mentioned. MORE IMPORTANT, THE STORY WAS FALSE IN ITS OBVIOUS IMPLICATION OF AN ANSCHLUSS BETWEEN GERMAN NEO-NAZIS AND U.S. REPUBLICANS.'
Days after Schorr's despicable slander, Bill Paley, President of CBS, ordered him to correct his outrageous falsehood on air. Did Schorr apologise or did he Dowderise? Of course not, he was a lying, leftist hack, who would say anything to make sure that only the Left prevailed and that the Right was smeared as a bunch of racist, bigoted, xenophobic Nazi lovers (Sound familiar?).
'In speaking the other day of a move by Senator Goldwater to link up with [German rightists], I did not mean to suggest a conscious effort on his part of which there is no proof here, but rather a process of gravitation which is visible here.'
- Daniel Schorr, CBS News, July, 1964
The vilification did not end there. It continued unabated. Martin Luther King, Jr, 'discerned dangerous signs of Hitlerism in the Goldwater campaign' and Reform Rabbi Joachim Prinz, president of the American Jewish Congress, warned that 'a Jewish vote for Goldwater is a vote for Jewish suicide.'
Goldwater's finance chairman, Bill Middendorf, had warned campaign aide Dean Burch that 'the 1952 tricks will be used again': planted stories, whispering campaigns, threats, cajolery and the 'shanghaiing and spiriting of delegates and alternates to distant points.' To this day, the Left pooh-poohs such and speaks with absolute certainty that Goldwater met with Nazi sympathisers in Germany in 1964.
'The whole campaign was run on fear of me. In fact, if I hadn't known Goldwater, I'd have voted against the son of a bitch myself.'
- Senator Barry Goldwater
It should shock exactly no one that the Jennifer Rubins, Karl Roves, David Brooks, David Frums, Joe Scarboroughs, etc, of the day said absolutely N-O-T-H-I-N-G in defence of Senator Barry Goldwater, their standard-bearer or in criticism of the outrageous, slanderous, Nazi-baiting, warmongering, totalitarian-seeking, poor hating, racist smears. Instead, they blamed Goldwater and his libertarianism-conservatism for LBJ's landslide while ignoring the other elephant in the room: The country was still traumatised by the Kennedy assassination and uneasy about having a fourth president in four years.
'In a period of ten months, Barry Goldwater was accused of being another Adolf Hitler, fomenting a racial holocaust, advocating a nuclear policy that would destroy half the world, seeking to destroy Social Security, being a lunatic paving the way for totalitarian government.'
- Lionel Lokos, Hysteria 1964
Following the reelection of Barack Obama, Jen wrote: 'When Republicans were in the White House more often than Democrats, they became more than a little expedient when it came to separation of powers. It is time to return to conventional checks and balances.' But, that is exactly what Barry Goldwater said in 1964, when he denounced the 'current worship of powerful executives, [which is] a philosophy totally at war with that of the Founding Fathers.'
Jennifer Rubin honestly believes that the problem in 1964 was Barry Goldwater and that Nelson Rockefeller would have beaten LBJ in 1964 even though he ran unsuccessfully for the Republican presidential nomination three times in the 1960s, often serving as a moderate counterpoint to Richard Nixon and Barry Goldwater.
Last year, Steve Kornacki wrote a piece in Slate about Rubin, Rockefeller and Goldwater. He wrote:
'The most important thing to realize about the Nelson Rockefeller who ran for president in 1964 is that he was an authentic political liberal, a believer in the power of government to fix the nation’s biggest problems, and he made essentially no effort to hide it. He favored strong civil rights laws, expansive anti-poverty programs, and major investments in education, healthcare and conservation. And the most important thing to realize about the Republican Party of 1964 is that to many of its leaders and rank-and-file members there was nothing at all alarming about Rockefeller’s liberalism...There was a burgeoning conservative movement in the party, though, and it rallied around Goldwater, a second-term Arizona senator (and the only non-Southern Republican to join the unsuccessful Senate filibuster of that year’s Civil Rights Act). Believing the numbers were on his side, Rockefeller openly attacked the Goldwater faction and its “extremism” and made little effort to modulate his own liberal rhetoric.'
As Jeffrey Lord of The American Spectator wrote on 18 November 2011:
'We don’t do endorsements in this space. To update Douglas MacArthur, we try and focus on conservatism — The Cause, and The Cause and The Cause. So it is somewhat amusing to see the Washington Post’s Officially Liberal-Approved Conservative Jennifer Rubin’s constant contortions to package all things Nelson Rockefeller — er — Mitt Romney as the latest in conservative fashion. Mr. Rocke—sorry… Romney may well be the GOP nominee, and if so we wish him well in ending the Obama-era. But to pretend that Rubin’s continual swipes at others (Newt Gingrich, Herman Cain, Rick Perry) are anything other than her inability to control a serious case of Establishment-media approved Romneyphilia is not something that will be allowed by her readers. Take a look at the comments following her latest rip on Mr. Gingrich. Ouch.'
...and Reagan, specifically, since 1976…
'But several of his characteristics seemed to rule him out as a serious challenger. One was his penchant for offering simplistic solutions to hideously complex problems...We have very little in common...I knew…that trying to satisfy these (right-wing) zealots would doom any general election hopes…'
— Former one-term President Gerald Ford, who was never elected as President or even Vice-President, on Ronald Reagan and conservatives
— Former one-term President Gerald Ford, who was never elected as President or even Vice-President, on Ronald Reagan and conservatives
Jennifer Rubin has been warning about the Tea Party's extremism since early 2009 urging Republican leadership to eschew the conservative base and Ayn Rand libertarians and work with President Obama. In fact, for as long as she has been in Washington, she has been telling Republicans to get over Reagan and embrace the New Deal - both ignoring the shift in voters' preferences and the showing her ignorance because Republicans did not reject programmes like Social Security and even Medicare later on, which she would realise if she bothered to review the Congressional records.
What ‘Republicans’ like Ms Rubin fail to remotely comprehend is that, if the majority of Americans wanted what they are attempting to sell, they’d vote for the party that already offers it: The Democrats. And, before the Rubin Rump of the Republican Party starts screaming, ‘But, the majority of Americans DID vote for the Democratic nominee in the last two, presidential elections!!!’ there are some FACTS that they had better face, PDQ...
1. The majority of Americans, who voted in the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections, REJECTED - PRECISELY - THE TYPE OF REPUBLICAN THAT THEY SWEAR WILL WIN NEXT TIME.
2. While the ‘majority’ of the Voting Age Population may have voted in the last two elections, as has been the trend, more than 40% of American voters STAYED HOME. Could it, possibly, be that they see no difference save ‘pastel colours’ between the parties? Once again, quoting Reagan:
‘But the significance of the election was not registered by those who voted, but by those who stayed home… Americans are hungry to feel once again a sense of mission and greatness. I don 't know about you, but I am impatient with those Republicans who after the last election rushed into print saying, "We must broaden the base of our party" -- when what they meant was to fuzz up and blur even more the differences between ourselves and our opponents. It was a feeling that there was not a sufficient difference now between the parties that kept a majority of the voters away from the polls. When have we ever advocated a closed-door policy? Who has ever been barred from participating? Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?’
For the FIRST time in the history of the United States:
‘53% think that the federal government threatens their own personal rights and freedoms while 43% disagree. In March 2010, opinions were divided over whether the government represented a threat to personal freedom; 47% said it did while 50% disagreed. In surveys between 1995 and 2003, majorities rejected the idea that the government threatened people’s rights and freedoms… The survey finds continued widespread distrust in government. About a quarter of Americans (26%) trust the government in Washington to do the right thing just about always or most of the time; 73% say they can trust the government only some of the time or volunteer that they can never trust the government.
Majorities across all partisan and demographic groups express little or no trust in government.’
- The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press poll
Other polling results that damn the ruling elite…and, bear in mind that these surveys were taken BEFORE the Obama Administration was proven to being lying about Benghazi and a ridiculous YouTube video; Obama IRS’ was exposed targeting the Tea Party, ‘Patriots,’ Christian & Jewish organisations, survivors of totalitarianism – including one, who spent FOUR YEARS IN AN IMPERIAL JAPANESE CONCENTRATION CAMP – conservative grassroots assemblages (such as the Latino groups Café con Leche and the Conservative Hispanic Society); the snooping of the Associated Press and unbelievable infringement on the First Amendment in the case of James Rosen AND HIS PARENTS; Kathleen Sebelius was revealed as a shakedown artist, whose behaviour is more egregious than that of Ollie North in Iran-Contra; the DOJ’s judge shopping; etc:
* Rasmussen noted in 2010 that only 21% of the American people think that the government has the consent of the governed, and that the sentiment was ‘pre-revolutionary.’
* Gallup noted in 2011 that a higher percentage of Americans liked King George during the colonial days than currently like Congress.
* In 2010, Gallup noted that trust was plummeting in virtually all institutions.
* According to a NBC News/Wall Street Journal, 76% of Americans believe that the country’s current financial and political structures favour the rich over the rest of the country. (The corrosive effect of Corporate Cronyism, a practise embraced by both parties.
* The Washington Post reported in 2011 that Congress – ALL of Congress, including the Democrat-controlled Senate - was less popular than communism, BP during the Gulf oil spill or Nixon during Watergate. (Hmmm…wonder what they’ll think about Obama’s pending ‘Watergates’???)
* Public Policy Polling reported that Congress is also less popular than cockroaches, lice, root canals, colonoscopies, traffic jams, used car salesman and ‘Ghengis Khan.’
* For the first time since the 9/11 terrorist hijackings, Americans are more fearful their government will abuse constitutional liberties than fail to keep its citizens safe.
'Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.'
- Benjamin Franklin
...And, they will get neither.
* Even in the wake of the April 15 Boston Marathon bombing – in which a pair of Islamic radicals are accused of planting explosives that took the lives of 3 and wounded over 280 – the Washington Post published a poll suggesting Americans are hesitant to give up any further freedoms in exchange for increased ‘security.’ (That’s N-U-T-S! The only thing we have to fear is the fear that government might become smaller, less intrusive, honour the Constitution, and protect the liberties of the American people!!!’)
* Obamacare, which was forced down the overwhelming majority of American throats, has continued its 48th month streak of being underwater in approval with even unions, who campaigned for it, calling for its repeal.
* 45% of 18 to 34-year olds are unemployed, according to a recent poll by the left-leaning public policy firm, Demos; yet, 66% have a positive opinion of entrepreneurship, 44% found ‘free markets’ are a ‘positive’ to individuals and society, and 42%believe the federal government is an opponent rather than a partner in thepursuit of the American Dream.
* More than 60% of college-age students feel that governmentshould not take an active role in their day-to-day-lives.
* 50% of Americans believe that the Federal government is hurting the economy.
* 58%of Americans believe that taxes should be DECREASED while only 21% believe that they should be increased.
* 38% of the public thinks that elected officials should focus on DECREASING the number and reach of Federal regulations while only 28% think otherwise.
* 51%of Americans believe that elected officials should focus on DECREASING the size of the Federal government while only 16% think that it should increase.
* 76%of Americans believe that elected officials should focus on CUTTING FEDERAL SPENDING rather than increasing it (11%).
* In 2012, Obama LOST more than 4 million of the young voters (18-29 year olds) and 7 million voters in total that he got in 2008.
On issue-after-issue, Obama loses the majority. He was a beatable candidate; yet, Jen Rubin's favourite candidate couldn't beat him. Could it be, for example, that RomneyCare was as big of a turnoff as Obamacare? Again, pale pastels...
1932 Presidential election result map
1936 Presidential election result map
1940 Presidential election result map
1944 Presidential election result map
1948 Presidential election result map
1956 Presidential election result map
1964 Presidential election result map
1972 Presidential election result map
1976 Presidential election result map
1980 Presidential election result map
1984 Presidential election result map
1988 Presidential election result map
1992 Presidential election result map
1996 Presidential election result map
2000 Presidential election result map
2004 Presidential election result map
2008 Presidential election result map
2012 Presidential election result map
Has the country become more conservative or less since FDR?
Now, am I saying that the United States looks like it did in 1984? No, but it sure as hell doesn't look like it did in 1936, which is something that Jennifer Rubin would be wise to learn.
To be continued...
Now, am I saying that the United States looks like it did in 1984? No, but it sure as hell doesn't look like it did in 1936, which is something that Jennifer Rubin would be wise to learn.
To be continued...