Today’s Republican Party is one that would likely consider Nixon & Reagan too liberal

[SlyPokerDog]

Today’s Republican Party is one that would likely consider Richard Nixon — who created the Environmental Protection Agency, championed affirmative action and advocated for national health care — too liberal. Even Reagan — who granted amnesty to 3 million undocumented immigrants, raised taxes 11 times and was willing to negotiate with the Soviets — might not survive a Republican presidential primary today.

If there isn’t room for Nixon and Reagan in today’s shrunken GOP tent, there definitely isn’t space for centrists such as Chafee and Webb. Webb’s views are eclectic, including a dose of economic populism, support for abortion rights, skepticism about immigration and opposition to gun control laws. Chafee likewise supports abortion rights and gay marriage. He also voted against the Bush tax cuts — on fiscally conservative grounds, mind you, since he thought they would irresponsibly widen the deficit. In a speech that I attended in 2003, Chafee lamented the rise of “right-wing fanatics” but said he truly believed Republican moderates would regain their clout, so he was committed to sticking with the party of his childhood. They didn’t, so he didn’t.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...74657a-0ad5-11e5-a7ad-b430fc1d3f5c_story.html

 

[Denny Crane]

Nixon was a Liberal. Reagan was Libertarian leaning - more so than Rand Paul.

Ike was a liberal.

All the liberals driven from the republican party and all the sane people from the democratic party.

 

[MarAzul]

That is a ridiculous article. Perhaps I am not qualified to judge since I am not exactly a Republican, but lump Reagan and Nixon into the same pile is ridiculous in any case.
I never could stand Nixon and he was a progressive more than a conservative, and even more of sleazy ass than anything. I never voted for the man, was aghast when he was elected President. The credits listed to him, are dubious marks in my mind. The country would be better off without them.

 

[MarAzul]

Nixon was a Liberal. Reagan was Libertarian leaning - more so than Rand Paul.

Ike was a liberal.

All the liberals driven from the republican party and all the sane people from the democratic party.

Yep. but I am not so sure about "all" considering the Jeb.

 

[santeesioux]

What would you be if you are socially liberal and fiscally conservative?

 

[MarAzul]

What would you be if you are socially liberal and fiscally conservative?

Ha! Undesirable comes to mind. Then theres outcast. Maybe unelectable fits.

 

[BlazerDuckSeahawkFan94]

What would you be if you are socially liberal and fiscally conservative?

A normal person in modern America?

 

[santeesioux]

A normal person in modern America?

But why are we so underrepresented? Let the gays get married and smoke some pot, but don't let the Oregon schools continue to pour our tax money into the apparent worst public schools in the country since that isn't fixing anything, why is that so odd?

 

[BlazerDuckSeahawkFan94]

But why are we so underrepresented? Let the gays get married and smoke some pot, but don't let the Oregon schools continue to pour our tax money into the apparent worst public schools in the country since that isn't fixing anything, why is that so odd?

People care more about feels than reals. I bet the majority of Oregonians don't realize how shit the schools really are.

 

[Denny Crane]

What would you be if you are socially liberal and fiscally conservative?

Libertarian.

 

[santeesioux]

People care more about feels than reals. I bet the majority of Oregonians don't realize how shit the schools really are.

If you've been in one in the last ten years, you certainly should, especially some of the rural ones.

 

[donkiez]

But why are we so underrepresented? Let the gays get married and smoke some pot, but don't let the Oregon schools continue to pour our tax money into the apparent worst public schools in the country since that isn't fixing anything, why is that so odd?

Because its essentially a nice way to say I don't like government wasteful spending but I like having freedoms. Who wouldn't agree with that? Issue is that in the real world this is to much of a simplistic view of politics and policies. For instance, would you support privatizing prisons to save money? Sounds like it could be a good idea, I mean the government cant do anything right, right? The reality of this scenario is that it creates an industrial prison complex with prison corporations trading on the stock market using prisoners as inventory, and with lobbyists working to create harsher penalties for minor crimes. Another example, you want to let people smoke pot? Cool I do too, lets smoke up........ what exactly will you be smoking though? Pesticides, molds, spider mite? Yummy, guess what? We need government regulation to make sure the product is safe for the consumer and that costs money. A libertarian would argue (and Im sure DC will correct me if Im wrong) that the free market, free of regulation will correct itself and consumer will shy away from pot stores that sell moldy weed. In the long run that might be true but what about people consuming these products while the market balances itself out? Also what about the dodgy pot shops that would sell anything for cheaper that the ones that actually test?

Problem I see with Dems or Repubs is that their parties are becoming to rigid. Where do you go if you support guns rights but also womens rights to choose? How about if you are dissatisfied with Wall Street and Obamacare but you love the idea of $15 min wage? Thats where libertarians, progressives and tea partiers have started to gain momentum.

 

[jlprk]

I was taught in high school Government class that the difference between democracy and dictatorship is a spirit of compromising. Beginning with Reagan and especially starting with Bush 1/Gingrich, compromising in Congress became a 1-way street.

Now, Republican leadership has decided to not allow Obama to be President for the rest of his term.

http://wegoted.com/2015/06/mcconnel...t-be-confirmed-for-the-remainder-of-his-term/

 

[SlyPokerDog]

I was taught in high school Government class that the difference between democracy and dictatorship is a spirit of compromising. Beginning with Reagan and especially starting with Bush 1/Gingrich, compromising in Congress became a 1-way street.

Now, Republican leadership has decided to not allow Obama to be President for the rest of his term.

http://wegoted.com/2015/06/mcconnel...t-be-confirmed-for-the-remainder-of-his-term/

If you were to kill McConnell, Obama could pardon you.

Perfect crime.

 

[riverman]

What would you be if you are socially liberal and fiscally conservative?

lonely

 

[MARIS61]

What would you be if you are socially liberal and fiscally conservative?

Constitutionally apathetic?

 

[MARIS61]

Both Reagan and Nixon were racist megalomaniacs who viewed the Presidency as an opportunity to steal from Real Americans and The Bill Of Rights as something to wipe their asses with.

Both committed dastardly criminal and treasonous acts before and during their terms, and both should have been executed for their betrayals.

No two Presidents have damaged America more, not even the Bushes.