Comments on: The Gop’s Forgotten Moderate History http://www.frumforum.com/the-gops-forgotten-moderate-history Building a conservatism that can win again Sat, 11 Feb 2012 17:50:44 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: cdt http://www.frumforum.com/the-gops-forgotten-moderate-history/comment-page-3#comment-49170 cdt Thu, 29 Jan 2009 18:26:38 +0000 #comment-49170 "It" was, rather. “It” was, rather.

]]> By: cdt http://www.frumforum.com/the-gops-forgotten-moderate-history/comment-page-3#comment-51647 cdt Thu, 29 Jan 2009 18:25:13 +0000 #comment-51647 I know, Hollywood Bill. I was sarcism, badly executived, obviously. I know, Hollywood Bill.

I was sarcism, badly executived, obviously.

]]> By: HollywoodBill http://www.frumforum.com/the-gops-forgotten-moderate-history/comment-page-3#comment-53544 HollywoodBill Thu, 29 Jan 2009 16:51:19 +0000 #comment-53544 cdt-- Get your facts straight. It was Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower who sent US Troops into Little Rock Arkansas to protect the black students who were integrating the public schools. It was Democratic Governor Orval Faubus who initially blocked the integrating of the Little Rock Schools. It was Earl Warren the ex Republican Governor of California who presided over the famed Brown v Education that started the whole LittleRock 9 integration suit anyway. As for championing Jim Crow laws, it was the Southern Dems who fought for the Separate but Equal laws initially. That changed -- but the Dems were the contributing force of the Jim Crow laws. There is a reason why Martin Luther King Senior was a Republican his entire life. cdt– Get your facts straight. It was Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower who sent US Troops into Little Rock Arkansas to protect the black students who were integrating the public schools. It was Democratic Governor Orval Faubus who initially blocked the integrating of the Little Rock Schools. It was Earl Warren the ex Republican Governor of California who presided over the famed Brown v Education that started the whole LittleRock 9 integration suit anyway. As for championing Jim Crow laws, it was the Southern Dems who fought for the Separate but Equal laws initially. That changed — but the Dems were the contributing force of the Jim Crow laws. There is a reason why Martin Luther King Senior was a Republican his entire life.

]]> By: cdt http://www.frumforum.com/the-gops-forgotten-moderate-history/comment-page-3#comment-45119 cdt Thu, 29 Jan 2009 15:12:53 +0000 #comment-45119 "ACLU acts to protect those on both sides of the political spectrum;" Cool. Then you'll have no problem providing links to their recent cases protecting a gun owner's Second Amendment rights or the rights of a private business owner to hire/fire as they see fit or to decide if they want smoking in their establishments, and exercise their rights of freedom of assembly and association? "What you say in this post is completely disconnected from reality and historical fact." Right. Because it was Republicans who championed Jim Crow Laws and it was a Democrat administration who sent U.S. troops to protect students in Little Rock, Arkansas. It is Republicans who are using judicial activism rather than the voting booth to bring about radical social changes, such asy marriage... and because the "right to privacy" is written in clear language in the Constitution, and the authority to limit medical procedures is clearly detailed in Article I, Section. Thomas Jefferson never said: "On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:449 OR... "The construction applied... to those parts of the Constitution of the United States which delegate to Congress a power 'to lay and collect taxes, duties, imports, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States, and 'to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the powers vested by the Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof,' goes to the destruction of all limits prescribed to [the General Government's] power by the Constitution... Words meant by the instrument to be subsidiary only to the execution of limited powers ought not to be construed as themselves to give unlimited powers, nor a part to be so taken as to destroy the whole residue of that instrument." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. ME 17:385. Right. It's me who is is "just plain wrong about all of this." “ACLU acts to protect those on both sides of the political spectrum;” Cool. Then you’ll have no problem providing links to their recent cases protecting a gun owner’s Second Amendment rights or the rights of a private business owner to hire/fire as they see fit or to decide if they want smoking in their establishments, and exercise their rights of freedom of assembly and association? “What you say in this post is completely disconnected from reality and historical fact.” Right. Because it was Republicans who championed Jim Crow Laws and it was a Democrat administration who sent U.S. troops to protect students in Little Rock, Arkansas. It is Republicans who are using judicial activism rather than the voting booth to bring about radical social changes, such asy marriage… and because the “right to privacy” is written in clear language in the Constitution, and the authority to limit medical procedures is clearly detailed in Article I, Section. Thomas Jefferson never said: “On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” –Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:449 OR… “The construction applied… to those parts of the Constitution of the United States which delegate to Congress a power ‘to lay and collect taxes, duties, imports, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States, and ‘to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the powers vested by the Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof,’ goes to the destruction of all limits prescribed to [the General Government's] power by the Constitution… Words meant by the instrument to be subsidiary only to the execution of limited powers ought not to be construed as themselves to give unlimited powers, nor a part to be so taken as to destroy the whole residue of that instrument.” –Thomas Jefferson: Draft Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. ME 17:385. Right. It’s me who is is “just plain wrong about all of this.”

]]> By: realconservativ http://www.frumforum.com/the-gops-forgotten-moderate-history/comment-page-3#comment-42106 realconservativ Thu, 29 Jan 2009 14:30:55 +0000 #comment-42106 As usual, you're right David. The perfect person to take advice from is the man who started out with the Presidency and both houses of Congress and by the time he left office, the GOP had nothing. Of course, we need to give credit where it's due. You NEOClOwNs helped destroy the GOP. As usual, you’re right David. The perfect person to take advice from is the man who started out with the Presidency and both houses of Congress and by the time he left office, the GOP had nothing. Of course, we need to give credit where it’s due. You NEOClOwNs helped destroy the GOP.

]]> By: larryo http://www.frumforum.com/the-gops-forgotten-moderate-history/comment-page-3#comment-54929 larryo Thu, 29 Jan 2009 14:00:46 +0000 #comment-54929 cdt - you are just plain wrong about almost all of this: The Fourteenth Amendment only prevents states from discriminating - depriving any citizens of the rights of all the citizens, and many of its protections have been eviscerated by Republican judges over the years; the founders enacted the Bill of Rights to protect us from the tyranny of the majority, and "conservatives" have been derogating the Bill of Rights in policy ever since; you are inflexible because you cannot face the truth about the ethical, intellectual and moral bankruptcy of your ideology; the ACLU acts to protect those on both sides of the political spectrum; Roe v. Wade was good law - Bush v. Gore was bad law, and we saw the implications of unfettered state power during the civil rights battles of the early 1960's, beginning with the police, who (representing their local majorities) were among the worst of the worst perpetrators. You deplore the tyranny of the majority when it acts to protect people from policies based on hate, xenophobia and racism, but I would wager it was fine with you when Bush was elected. What you say in this post is completely disconnected from reality and historical fact. cdt – you are just plain wrong about almost all of this: The Fourteenth Amendment only prevents states from discriminating – depriving any citizens of the rights of all the citizens, and many of its protections have been eviscerated by Republican judges over the years; the founders enacted the Bill of Rights to protect us from the tyranny of the majority, and “conservatives” have been derogating the Bill of Rights in policy ever since; you are inflexible because you cannot face the truth about the ethical, intellectual and moral bankruptcy of your ideology; the ACLU acts to protect those on both sides of the political spectrum; Roe v. Wade was good law – Bush v. Gore was bad law, and we saw the implications of unfettered state power during the civil rights battles of the early 1960’s, beginning with the police, who (representing their local majorities) were among the worst of the worst perpetrators. You deplore the tyranny of the majority when it acts to protect people from policies based on hate, xenophobia and racism, but I would wager it was fine with you when Bush was elected. What you say in this post is completely disconnected from reality and historical fact.

]]> By: cdt http://www.frumforum.com/the-gops-forgotten-moderate-history/comment-page-3#comment-45537 cdt Thu, 29 Jan 2009 13:21:15 +0000 #comment-45537 While I would consider myself a "moderate" (whatever that means), I think the problem is not that the GOP is unwaveringly committed to being un-moderate. It is responding to a confusion (ok, a usurping) of Federal power over the states. The 14th Amendment has been (wrongly) interpreted to (essentially) blot out any authority in the states to establish laws, rules, and policies that are contrary to what someone in New York or San Francisco thinks they should be, as they define "compassionate"... the "tyranny of the majority" the Founders were so keen of warning us of (and trying to protect us from) has occurred and THAT is what gives the impression of conservative inflexibility. Yes, we ARE inflexible about that. If you want to alter what the Feds may do to empower them to do more, then we have a process to create Amendments to do that. Other than that, stop imposing immorality and libertinism as the ideology of the land. When the ACLU stands down on selective litigation of sections of the Bill of Rights it supports, then the conservative side of the aisle will stop pushing back against that kind of judicial activism. Regardless of someone's views on something like abortion, the reality is that many can agree that Roe v Wade (and other things like it) are bad law, as it takes the power that SHOULD be with the states, and elevates them to edicts imposed on the states. All of the social issues that seem to be causing the great divide shouldn't be national issues, and it really comes down to deciding how you define "compassionate." Is it how we should behave and treat others, or do we respect (compassionately) the rights of citizens to define it differently, and be inflexible in the eyes of another? These should be local issues, decided by the states (or lower). It is the expansion of (and complete disregard) of the limited powers of the Congress (to Article I, Section 8) taking "general welfare" to places it was never intended to go, as well as the idea that the POTUS is some sort of national overlord. There can't help but be a backlash against that (and it will be conservative or liberal, depending on the day/issue), with one side arguing against the other on what "national" policy must be, but the reality is that it should not be "national" at all. Until (and if) we restore the power of the states through The People in their respective states to legislate as they see fit (within the very limited restrictions of the Bill of Rights and Article I Section 8), we'll continue to have battles of "ideological inflexibility" as both sides of the aisle are way playing a tug-o-war of one ideological extreme over the other. The only REAL compassion is in respecting the Will of the Majority in each state and locale to establish the laws, standards and policies as they see fit, and to establish as many or as few laws and regulations as they see want, respecting the rights of people in other states to do the same. While I would consider myself a “moderate” (whatever that means), I think the problem is not that the GOP is unwaveringly committed to being un-moderate. It is responding to a confusion (ok, a usurping) of Federal power over the states.

The 14th Amendment has been (wrongly) interpreted to (essentially) blot out any authority in the states to establish laws, rules, and policies that are contrary to what someone in New York or San Francisco thinks they should be, as they define “compassionate”… the “tyranny of the majority” the Founders were so keen of warning us of (and trying to protect us from) has occurred and THAT is what gives the impression of conservative inflexibility. Yes, we ARE inflexible about that. If you want to alter what the Feds may do to empower them to do more, then we have a process to create Amendments to do that. Other than that, stop imposing immorality and libertinism as the ideology of the land. When the ACLU stands down on selective litigation of sections of the Bill of Rights it supports, then the conservative side of the aisle will stop pushing back against that kind of judicial activism.

Regardless of someone’s views on something like abortion, the reality is that many can agree that Roe v Wade (and other things like it) are bad law, as it takes the power that SHOULD be with the states, and elevates them to edicts imposed on the states.

All of the social issues that seem to be causing the great divide shouldn’t be national issues, and it really comes down to deciding how you define “compassionate.” Is it how we should behave and treat others, or do we respect (compassionately) the rights of citizens to define it differently, and be inflexible in the eyes of another? These should be local issues, decided by the states (or lower).

It is the expansion of (and complete disregard) of the limited powers of the Congress (to Article I, Section 8) taking “general welfare” to places it was never intended to go, as well as the idea that the POTUS is some sort of national overlord.

There can’t help but be a backlash against that (and it will be conservative or liberal, depending on the day/issue), with one side arguing against the other on what “national” policy must be, but the reality is that it should not be “national” at all.

Until (and if) we restore the power of the states through The People in their respective states to legislate as they see fit (within the very limited restrictions of the Bill of Rights and Article I Section 8), we’ll continue to have battles of “ideological inflexibility” as both sides of the aisle are way playing a tug-o-war of one ideological extreme over the other.

The only REAL compassion is in respecting the Will of the Majority in each state and locale to establish the laws, standards and policies as they see fit, and to establish as many or as few laws and regulations as they see want, respecting the rights of people in other states to do the same.

]]> By: larryo http://www.frumforum.com/the-gops-forgotten-moderate-history/comment-page-3#comment-54562 larryo Thu, 29 Jan 2009 12:07:02 +0000 #comment-54562 Good morning, everyone. On the subject if immigration, the answer is obvious and inexpensive, and always has been: Congress should provide for a mandatory minimum sentence of 1 year in a federal penitentiary for anyone who hires an undocumented alien for domestic work and two years for anyone who does so for profit. The jobs would disappear and so, quickly, would the undocumented aliens. Waivers could be provided for the very few businesses that really need them. The documentation process should be streamlined for seasonal workers. Problem solved. Good morning, everyone. On the subject if immigration, the answer is obvious and inexpensive, and always has been: Congress should provide for a mandatory minimum sentence of 1 year in a federal penitentiary for anyone who hires an undocumented alien for domestic work and two years for anyone who does so for profit. The jobs would disappear and so, quickly, would the undocumented aliens. Waivers could be provided for the very few businesses that really need them. The documentation process should be streamlined for seasonal workers. Problem solved.

]]> By: Chekote http://www.frumforum.com/the-gops-forgotten-moderate-history/comment-page-3#comment-48578 Chekote Thu, 29 Jan 2009 11:41:13 +0000 #comment-48578 I waiting to see what happens with the RNC election. If Steele wins. The GOP has chance. If not, I am opting for a third party. I waiting to see what happens with the RNC election. If Steele wins. The GOP has chance. If not, I am opting for a third party.

]]> By: suey http://www.frumforum.com/the-gops-forgotten-moderate-history/comment-page-3#comment-47634 suey Thu, 29 Jan 2009 11:18:07 +0000 #comment-47634 Mark i agree with you. Where are the big ideas? The overarching strategy and striving for a new identity. If the Conservatives do not redefine themselves soon they are leaving a void that a third party could fill. As only 5 states now are considered red that is a definite possibility. Mark i agree with you. Where are the big ideas? The overarching strategy and striving for a new identity. If the Conservatives do not redefine themselves soon they are leaving a void that a third party could fill. As only 5 states now are considered red that is a definite possibility.

]]>