Question:
When will the GOP get a real conservative?
2007-07-25 07:21:06 UTC
In recent years, the GOP has not have had a real conservative running. All I see has been phony conservatives and I think it is funny how just because one person, like George Bush, who is not a true conservative, calls himself a conservative, he has all kinds of people supporting him. Real conservatives would notice that we have not have had a real conservative since Goldwater and Reagan. Real conservatives would be angry that our country is being sold to corporations and globalism and the ones who still support Bush because he calls himself a conservative are phony conservatives. Most of the real, old time conservatives are now Libertarians. The ones who still vote Republican and call themselves true, blue conservatives must be very young or they are a moderate conservative.
Nineteen answers:
2007-07-25 07:30:16 UTC
Barry Goldwater was actually against the government interfering with a woman's choice in regards to abortion. He was the Father of conservatism. Newt Gingrich is our best hope I believe. He understands the threats of terrorism, yet he is a master of history and realizes that isolationism is America's best hope for survival rather than turning the U.S. dollar into the Amero which would be used in Canada, Mexico, and America. I wonder if that is why the Immigration Bill was such a conundrum?
2007-07-25 07:32:01 UTC
In an interview with Goldwater, shortly before he died, He said that in looking back on his life and career, he was wrong on a number of things. Finding out that his favorite grandson was gay brought this change of heart about.

Reagan was a conservative only in the fact that he stopped a lot of spending on social programs while running up the largest national debt in history, till W came along.

So, in answer to your question, you will get a true conservative, when you vote for one. Voting for a son of a bit*h just because he is your son of a bit*h will get you a son of a bit*h every time.
?
2016-10-09 12:43:35 UTC
Too far suitable could propose the moderates does not vote Republican. No US president has ever been elected with the reasonable vote. The Democrats have become extra liberal & will lose the reasonable vote except the Republicans make an analogous mistake with the help of shifting too far suitable. turning out to be too intense for the known American. Compromise will win this next election.
2007-07-25 07:33:10 UTC
Newt Ginghrich will enter the race. He will use it as a tool to guide the discourse in the favor of his choice. He will then drop out of the race and endorse one of the other candidates, vote for that one. He will be the closest thing to a true conservative that you are likely to get.

Probably Romney.

In any case, the neo cons sat on their hands in 2006 to give the democrats enough rope to hang themselves.

Looking at the congressional ratings, they did not disappoint.

NeoCons won't be still this time around. They will rally the voters that stayed home disgusted in 2006.
The Nerd
2007-07-25 07:30:16 UTC
The mainstream parties have always been somewhat centrist, so as to broaden their appeal. The Dems seem to be shifting to the left right now, if you ask me. That's fine with me, because they'll alienate moderate democrats with their kooky socialist rhetoric. I'd actually rather see Republicans straddle the fence a little right now. It's going to take the GOP longer to recover from Bush than it did for them to recover from Nixon.
2007-07-25 07:53:59 UTC
What do you do when you want to screw only the working people of your nation with the largest tax increase in history and hand those trillions of dollars to your wealthy campaign contributors, yet not have anybody realize you've done it? If you're Ronald Reagan, you call in Alan Greenspan.

Through the "golden years of the American middle class" - the 1940s through 1982 - the top income tax rate for the hyper-rich had been between 90 and 70 percent. Ronald Reagan wanted to cut that rate dramatically, to help out his political patrons. He did this with a massive tax cut in the summer of 1981.

The only problem was that when Reagan took his meat axe to our tax code, he produced mind-boggling budget deficits. Voodoo economics didn't work out as planned, and even after borrowing so much money that this year we'll pay over $100 billion just in interest on the money Reagan borrowed to make the economy look good in the 1980s, Reagan couldn't come up with the revenues he needed to run the government.

Coincidentally, the actuaries at the Social Security Administration were beginning to get worried about the Baby Boomer generation, who would begin retiring in big numbers in fifty years or so. They were a "rabbit going through the python" bulge that would require a few trillion more dollars than Social Security could easily collect during the same 20 year or so period of their retirement. We needed, the actuaries said, to tax more heavily those very persons who would eventually retire, so instead of using current workers' money to pay for the Boomer's Social Security payments in 2020, the Boomers themselves would have pre-paid for their own retirement.

Reagan got Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Alan Greenspan together to form a commission on Social Security reform, along with a few other politicians and economists, and they recommend a near-doubling of the Social Security tax on the then-working Boomers. That tax created - for the first time in history - a giant savings account that Social Security could use to pay for the Boomers' retirement.

This was a huge change. Prior to this, Social Security had always paid for today's retirees with income from today's workers (it still is today). The Boomers were the first generation that would pay Social Security taxes both to fund current retirees and save up enough money to pay for their own retirement. And, after the Boomers were all retired and the savings account - called the "Social Security Trust Fund" - was all spent, the rabbit would have finished its journey through the python and Social Security could go back to a "pay as you go" taxing system.

Thus, within the period of a few short years, Reagan dramatically dropped the income tax on America's most wealthy by more than half, and roughly doubled the Social Security tax on people earning $30,000 or less. It was, simultaneously, the largest income tax cut in America's history (almost entirely for the very wealthy), and the most massive tax increase in the history of the nation (which entirely hit working-class people).

But Reagan still had a problem. His tax cuts for the wealthy - even when moderated by subsequent tax increases - weren't generating enough money to invest properly in America's infrastructure, schools, police and fire departments, and military. The country was facing bankruptcy.

No problem, suggested Greenspan. Just borrow the Boomer's savings account - the money in the Social Security Trust Fund - and, because you're borrowing "government money" to fund "government expenditures," you don't have to list it as part of the deficit. Much of the deficit will magically seem to disappear, and nobody will know what you did for another 50 years when the Boomers begin to retire 2015.

Reagan jumped at the opportunity. As did George H. W. Bush. As did Bill Clinton (although Al Gore argued strongly that Social Security funds should not be raided, but, instead, put in a "lock box"). And so did George W. Bush.

The result is that all that money - trillions of dollars - that has been taxed out of working Boomers (the ceiling has risen from the tax being on your first $30,000 of income to the first $90,000 today) has been borrowed and spent. What are left behind are a special form of IOUs - an unique form of Treasury debt instruments similar (but not identical) to those the government issues to borrow money from China today to fund George W. Bush's most recent tax cuts for billionaires (George Junior is still also "borrowing" from the Social Security Trust Fund).

Former Bush Junior Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill recounts how Dick Cheney famously said, "Reagan proved deficits don't matter." Cheney was either ignorant or being disingenuous - it would be more accurate to say, "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter if you rip off the Social Security Trust Fund to pay for them, and don't report that borrowing from the Boomers as part of the deficit."
2007-07-25 07:30:09 UTC
The real question is, when will they support him/her? Right now, it's Ron Paul. Can someone tell me why they think Fred is a "real conservative" other than the fact he's Bush 2.0? Or is it because MSM tells you he is a contender?
sprcpt
2007-07-25 07:26:30 UTC
Correction, Regan was not a true conservative either.



He hid his monstrous deficit spending by raiding Social Security that we have all paid into, thus taking what people regarded as money that they would get back at retirement time as additional taxes.



As governor of California, Regan declared catsup a vegetable for the school menu.



Otherwise you are very correct, the conservatives have left the Republican party long ago and the only hope for a true conservative is in the Libertarian party.
Bob J
2007-07-25 07:29:09 UTC
I think that Conservatives look for someone they think can win too much. It seems like they have started to believe the media's lies about the average Americans political beliefs. I can't stand any of the people we have running.
2007-07-25 07:24:15 UTC
Ron Paul is the only true conservative running. Goldwater would be proud of him.
Ken C
2007-07-25 07:25:43 UTC
Kinda the same with both parties now. At best, we have become more like the democrats Truman, and JFK.

And the Dems. have gone nuts, bordering on Socialism.

Good point.

Show us a true conservative out there. And no, not that goofus, Ron Paul...
anonacoup
2007-07-25 07:24:38 UTC
what is a "real conservative"



I think the term conservative has been bastardized by politicians and propagandists so much over the last 30 years that it no longer has any real meaning



to me a conservative is someone who wants no changes to the status quo, a liberal is someone who wants society to change; this is from the Webster Dictionary definition of conservative: "tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions"



by this definition a pro-choice person is conservative, a anti-abortion person liberal (or maybe regressive) since abortion is an existing institution
CHARITY G
2007-07-25 07:27:28 UTC
The GOP will only become relevant when it drops the ultra social conservatives that have held the party hostage for the last twenty years or so. If you consistently appeal to a crazy base of voters - then eventually people will think you are crazy.
2007-07-25 07:30:34 UTC
When Fred Thompson officially enters the race.
2007-07-25 07:37:55 UTC
They already have one, the man sitting in the White House right now, but, as par your question, it would be Fred Thompson in '08.
Tin Foil Fez
2007-07-25 07:26:10 UTC
Fred Thompson 2008!
2007-07-25 07:23:03 UTC
The GOP is done and over with... George Bush made sure of that.
2007-07-25 07:25:44 UTC
Fred Thompson is the closest we've got, and he has my full support.
Kris B
2007-07-25 07:26:46 UTC
I'm with Fred.


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...