5/29 Article by Thomas Sowell "A War of Words"

[OldMercsRule]

Dr. Sowell tends to write challanging and interesting articles. From my perspective: as a life long Cornservative, vs (the "Neo Con" term that the left uses to denigrate our Cornservative ideas), Dr. Sowell's observations are patently obvious. The Left/Liberals/Democrats are very used to the hard left bias in the dominant media and achedemia. IMHO that is why they usually use the "incrowd sneer" to deal with any Cornservative idea that comes up as we all know, (and hopefully can still remember), from our school days out on the playground. That helps to explain the wobbly/timid nature of modern Republicans when they are in the majority from time to time since 1994, and the boldness of modern Democrats regardless of their minority or majority status. It helps explain why Democrats can commit blatent crimes, or be involved with the most anti-American activity imaginable as still handily win elections. Willy's editors have helped to keep this dysfunction in place much longer then it normally would last if there were balance in the media. It explains the unbelievably large percentage of dim wit Democrats that think that President Bush knew of the 9/11 attack prior to the event. It also will likely have a happy ending some time in the future. Talk radio and the internet is making inroads and the MSM is a great place to find short opportunities for investers. Why does talk radio favor Cornservative ideas? It is very hard to have an effective sneer on the radio. YOUR IDEAS BETTER BE GOOD ON RADIO, as you need to defend them against live fire. It helps explain why iboats tends to have greater numbers of Cornservatives. They make "sneering" much more difficult with their moderating. My $.02. Sorry to those who really dislike politics. JR

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/05/a_war_of_words.html

 

[Coors]

Re: 5/29 Article by Thomas Sowell "A War of Words"

Florida put a quick stop to that crap.

 

[Skinnywater]

Re: 5/29 Article by Thomas Sowell "A War of Words"

"the "Neo Con" term that the left uses to denigrate our Cornservative ideas"

The right uses the word "neo-con" to label those that pose as conservatives while denigrating Conservative ideas.

 

[OldMercsRule]

Re: 5/29 Article by Thomas Sowell "A War of Words"

Florida put a quick stop to that crap.

Hey Coors, If you are talking about the takings decision, (that was the recent US Supreme Court KELO et al v New London et al 6/23/2005), that found that a local government could use 'eminent domain' previously used for large essential public structures or roads to instead be used by local government to maximize property taxes or other tax revinues by allowing a private developer to turn your own property into a resort by making political donations to the local pols. Federal Law trumps ALL STATE law so don't think you are soooooo secure in Florida. President Obama or Hillary will change things profoundly with the Supreme Court if ya give 'em a chance. This is the problem with Liberals: the "ends justify the means" philosophy. Our Founding Fathers gave us a 20 page document that protects us against: THE GOVERNMENT, (public schools emphasize knowledge of all aspects of homosexuality: not important things, like how our Country actually works so they can pull this carp without much trouble from their dim cornstituants). I believe it is the 5th amendment, (but it maybe elsewhere in the Cornstitution), that places a huge burden on the government to properly compensate private freeholders for essential public projects prior to any taking. The Democrats want to treat these protections as part of their "living breathing" document as stated by Algore when he was running for President and since oft repeated by Joe Biden and many other promenant Dems. When the Libs wanted Abortion on Demand they just appointed Federal Judges that made it up out of the blue. That is why I often state: "is Liberalism a mental disorder?" The Democrats learned well from ol' FDR how to get what the legislatures don't give 'em, or the Cornstatution used to stop. They just appoint 'tyrants' for life that rule (legislate) from the bench. Federalism is trumped by their religion of BIG GOVERNMENT. Bro Haut is worried about Big Oil n' Phama n' Tobacco n' Insurance, those are real pip squeaks compared to the BIGGEST ONE OF 'EM ALL: Uncle Sam!!! Is Liberalism a mental disorder? Do we want the rule of law, or want the rule of black robed tyrants from the bench? That is one of my main reasons that I am carefull about voting for ANY DEMOCRAT. The preservation of my, (and all of American's rights), is my single largest voting issue. A large part of the population that votes Dem seem to worship BIG GOVERNMENT. A HUGE PROBLEM FOR THE 21st CENTURY. Critical thinkin' would stop 'em, but can we think critically any more??? As an owner of a private island in a very pricey area in GOD's, (the real BIG FELLA's) Country, you can see why I personally cornsider this foolishness is a real potential problem. Would a private resort on my Island bring in more tax $?????? Whatchya think? Respectfully, JR

 

[OldMercsRule]

Re: 5/29 Article by Thomas Sowell "A War of Words"

"the "Neo Con" term that the left uses to denigrate our Cornservative ideas"

The right uses the word "neo-con" to label those that pose as conservatives while denigrating Conservative ideas.

I respectfully disagree: Skinny. Cornservatism is a very large tent. Many "neo Cons" like Ronald Reagan, Bill Bennet, n' many others cornverted from Democrat to Republican due to many of the illogical issues held by the modern Democrat party, that used to have some honorable people, (Like Scoop Jackson, or more recently Zell Miller or Sam Nunn). 12footer is a rock ribbed 'Neo Con' cornservative, (likely farther right then me). Although you are one of the farthest right posters here, (and you would likely label many of my positions liberal from yer perspective), that does not make me a Liberal. Most Cornservatives are more Liberal then you, but they are still Cornservatives. IMHO, (which you may differ). JR

 

[12Footer]

Re: 5/29 Article by Thomas Sowell "A War of Words"

"the "Neo Con" term that the left uses to denigrate our Cornservative ideas"

The right uses the word "neo-con" to label those that pose as conservatives while denigrating Conservative ideas.

Nope... that's what we call a RINO (Republican In Name Only).

Libs came-up with NEO-CON because it conjures-up images of NEO-(think about it).. (that's right, NAZI).
Websters defines NEO as :1 a : new : recent *Neogene*
b : new and different period or form of *Neoplatonism* : in a new and different form or manner *Neoplatonic*
c : New World *Neotropical*
d : new and abnormal *neoplasm*
2 : new chemical compound isomeric with or otherwise related to (such) a compound
Con would be an abreviation of CONservative.
So it is defined as a feller who just became a conservative, or hasn't been a conservative all his life. I fit that category..... Better late than never.

 

[12Footer]

Re: 5/29 Article by Thomas Sowell "A War of Words"

Talk radio and the internet is making inroads and the MSM is a great place to find short opportunities for investers. Why does talk radio favor Cornservative ideas? It is very hard to have an effective sneer on the radio. YOUR IDEAS BETTER BE GOOD ON RADIO, as you need to defend them against live fire. It helps explain why iboats tends to have greater numbers of Cornservatives. They make "sneering" much more difficult with their moderating. My $.02. Sorry to those who really dislike politics. JR

There is a GENERIC and more-important reason in addition to the snear deal--- Talk radio MUST turn a profit, or it ceases to be
And it doesn't matter if it is "public" radio, or commercial. If it does not, it goes the way of dead AIR AMERICA.

 

[Skinnywater]

Re: 5/29 Article by Thomas Sowell "A War of Words"

I respectfully disagree: Skinny. Cornservatism is a very large tent. Many "neo Cons" like Ronald Reagon, Bill Bennet, n' many others cornverted from Democrat to Republican due to many of the illogical issues held by the modern Democrat party, that used to have some honorable people, (Like Scoop Jackson, or more recently Zell Miller or Sam Nunn). 12footer is a rock ribbed 'Neo Con' cornservative, (likely farther right then me). Although you are one of the farthest right posters here, (and you would likely label many of my positions liberal from yer perspective), that does not make me a Liberal. Most Cornservatives are more Liberal then you, but they are still Cornservatives. IMHO, (which you may differ). JR

As with the Democratic party, the Republican changed also.

Ronald Reagon was largely influenced by Barry Goldwater, although Reagon spoke conservatism, ultimately he grew government and was proactive in foriegn entanglements.

From the palio-conservative (not liberal) view a neo-con is just that, a Republican who favors big government and foriegn entanglements.

As the neo-con evolves the list grows. Big government, big spending, generous foriegn aid, internationalism and unchecked immigration.

Gentlemen, the term "neo-con" wasn't invented by liberals. It was a "neo" term used to describe those Republicans that would "talk the talk" to get the conservative base vote then abandon them once in office.

For example; A real attention grab to me by GWB in the 2000 campaign was the ultra conservative talk of privatising Social Security.
After the election that was dropped and an immediate push for (and passed) perscription drug benefits under medicare.
The result was a complete 180 degree turn in basic ideaology.

Spending has been another 180, and you might make excuses for it in this time of war.
However, just today another 5 BILLION to Africa for AIDS education?
Definately a 180.

Immigration, generous executive trade packages,...........
And the ultimate knife in the back of every conservative, coining the term "compassionate conservatism", as if to imply conservatism isn't compassionate.........what a burn.

It does seem there are other traits neo-con have.
Denial, they are in denial of who they really are all the way to the extent of blaming the left, when it was actually the right for exposing them.

Thanks to the neo-con, the left just clumps the conservative and neo-con as one... thanks a lot.

 

[OldMercsRule]

Re: 5/29 Article by Thomas Sowell "A War of Words"

As with the Democratic party, the Republican changed also.

Agreed both seem to want government growth, which I oppose.

Ronald Reagon was largely influenced by Barry Goldwater, although Reagon spoke conservatism, ultimately he grew government and was proactive in foriegn entanglements.

Agreed again. That said: you are conducting a 'static analysis' of a complex dynamic situation. Had Ronald Reagan not grown all aspects of our military, (which significantly grew the government) we would have gone to war with the USSR and likely lost. In my view, (which may be far to Liberal for you: President Reagan had no choice and the 200 year old system was there when he got there [with lots of enemies within]), and the results were worth it as well. It is hard to avoid foriegn entanglements when we are not a self sufficient fortress island since we are the largest economy and most formadable military on this particular planet.

From the palio-conservative (not liberal) view a neo-con is just that, a Republican who favors big government and foriegn entanglements.

Don't agree. The term "Neo Con" was both coined and amplified by the Democrats n' Liberals and their buds: the MSM to coincide with "Neo Nazi" to denigrate Jewish hawks that had previously been Liberal. It's use has generally expanded since then.

As the neo-con evolves the list grows. Big government, big spending, generous foriegn aid, internationalism and unchecked immigration.

Yes, now the hard right is using it to criticize other Cornservatives, (which I think is a shame).

Gentlemen, the term "neo-con" wasn't invented by liberals. It was a "neo" term used to describe those Republicans that would "talk the talk" to get the conservative base vote then abandon them once in office.

Wrong: see above reply as to the source of the term. Dr. Sowell wrote a piece that talked about how Libs and the MSM uses words to win propaganda points. You are talking about how the terms have since morphed.

For example; A real attention grab to me by GWB in the 2000 campaign was the ultra conservative talk of privatising Social Security.
After the election that was dropped and an immediate push for (and passed) perscription drug benefits under medicare.
The result was a complete 180 degree turn in basic ideaology.

I see it differently. GWB is a very skilled Pol and knows how to govern. Education was and is a big deal with him right out of the hole in 2000. The positives about the "no child left behind" was the standardized testing imposed by the Feds, (which will likely lead to a better educated population). He had to compromise and grow the government to get Ted Kennedy and the Dems to sign on. I think a much better solution is to close the Dept of Education, and allow ALL parents to take a voutcher in the amount of their tax allocation and spend it where they get the most bang for the buck, (private or public). What chance would that have had? Zero. Standardized achievement tests prior to graduation was the only good thing about that deal, as we know modern Democrats need to limit critical thinking as much as possible to stay in power. Social Security was too difficult to do in the first term, and was tackled early in the second term and was predictably shot down by those who want all those SS tax dollars to grow dependency, (Republicans and Democrats). Taking that issue on in 2004-5 after victory over JF Kerry was a logical political calculation, and cost him a great deal of political capital.

Spending has been another 180, and you might make excuses for it in this time of war.
However, just today another 5 BILLION to Africa for AIDS education?
Definately a 180.

Agreed. Don't like that much either.

Immigration, generous executive trade packages,...........
And the ultimate knife in the back of every conservative, coining the term "compassionate conservatism", as if to imply conservatism isn't compassionate.........what a burn.


See Dr Sowell's article. That is just smart politics: Skinny!

It does seem there are other traits neo-con have.
Denial, they are in denial of who they really are all the way to the extent of blaming the left, when it was actually the right for exposing them.

Politics is a mixed bag Skinny. You never get all ya want, ya just get most of what ya deem important. Algore or John F Kerry would have been an unmitigated disaster that I am glad we avoided. GWB picked GREAT judicial appointments. You can bash the rest of yer Cornservative Brothers n' Sisters all ya want, but I think it is unproductive.

Thanks to the neo-con, the left just clumps the conservative and neo-con as one... thanks a lot.

Yer helpin' 'em Skinny. I'm not a "Neo Con" I'm a Cornservative. I just may have different ways of balancing my issues then you do, (as do other Cornservatives). I try not to label someone on my side of things unless I have to. Respectfully JR ps: I will post one more reply to yer great challange: comming up!

 

[OldMercsRule]

Re: 5/29 Article by Thomas Sowell "A War of Words"

Politics always has both an "ideal" and a "practicle" aspect. As a Cornservative, if I had a magic wand I would do the following: #1 eliminate the IRS and go to a very simple sales tax or flat tax. Benifit: FAR LESS POWER OVER ALL OF OUR LIVES BY POLITICIANS AND GOVERNMENT BUREAUCRATS #2 close both the Northern and Southern borders with a big fence manned by both people and technoligy. Benifit: slow down illegal immagration to a trickle from a flood. #3 Privatize Social Security. Benifit: citizens would own and be responsible for the corntrol of their own forced savings, (and Politicians would have far less money to spend or victims to spend it on) #4 Open education up to all forms of competition with tax vouchers, as long as graduates passed standardized proficiency tests before recieving diplomas. Benifit: much more critical thinkin' less government monopoly Democrat voting teachers unions turning out experts of homosexuality and knowing nothing else other then all aspects of victimhood #5 Close as many Federal Departments as pracatcle. Education et al. Lay off government workers!!! #6 Appoint only strict constructionist judges, and impeach those judges that legislate from the bench. #7 Open up health care to competition. AMA standards need to change to create more Doctors n' Health professionals that can staff clinics, (similar to the Texas state approach). #8 Let society debate and settle the issue of what to do with existing illegal immigrents now in our Country. This is a quick n' dirty short list, (not in any particular order)
Now that was my "ideal list" is out there. The trouble is: Liberals are very powerful and have a 180 degree different adjenda. They want all of us totally dependent on them the Liberals in power in the government and media. The want a complex IRS so they can get the benifits from all the lobbying and intererferance in our affairs, (POWER). They want a huge monopoly on education that employs a huge number of loyal union workers that both vote Democrat and turn out poorly educated victims who will depend on the government for all things to keep Liberals in power. They want high oil prices so they openly and brazenly limit the supply so they can blame the high prices on the industry and grow the government bigger to try to solve the problem that they created. As Bro Haut's proposal to get BIG GOVERNMENT into the BIG OIL business is maybe a troll on his part, but not by true grow the government Liberals. This thread was intended to expose this part of their tactics. Bottom line: Skinny and fellow Cornservatives. We all have different rankings of our political issues, but Cornservatives tend to promote small government and personal ownership and responsibility. Liberals tend to promote all forrms of victimhood and activism in government to grow the government to solve the victimhood issues their polocies create. My $.02 sorry for the rant. JR

 

[Skinnywater]

Re: 5/29 Article by Thomas Sowell "A War of Words"

I see it differently. GWB is a very skilled Pol and knows how to govern. Education was and is a big deal with him right out of the hole in 2000. The positives about the "no child left behind" was the standardized testing imposed by the Feds, (which will likely lead to a better educated population). He had to compromise and grow the government to get Ted Kennedy and the Dems to sign on. I think a much better solution is to close the Dept of Education, and allow ALL parents to take a voutcher in the amount of their tax allocation and spend it where they get the most bang for the buck, (private or public). What chance would that have had? Zero. Standardized achievement tests prior to graduation was the only good thing about that deal, as we know modern Democrats need to limit critical thinking as much as possible to stay in power. Social Security was too difficult to do in the first term, and was tackled early in the second term and was predictably shot down by those who want all those SS tax dollars to grow dependency, (Republicans and Democrats). Taking that issue on in 2004-5 after victory over JF Kerry was a logical political calculation, and cost him a great deal of political capital.

Well there's some of that denial regarding "GWB is a very skilled Pol and knows how to govern."
Surely GWB wouldn't have fallen into the same trap that the Dem's pulled on his old man. Remember "read my lips, no new taxes" turned to tax increases by compromising with the Dems, costing him a second term.
The net result of conservatives compromising with socialists gets you something left of conservative, it always has been.
Bush and the historical Republican Congress/Senate were elected by conservatives because they talked a conservative plan.
With that historical event of a Republican executive and legislative branch and a conservative mandate it was foolish and unneccesary to compromise with the dems. That answers your point.

Now back to one of my points you failed to answer.
In regards to the perscription benefits for medicare program.
It wasn't a compromise, the dems hated it because it was the Republicans beating them at their own game, passing a massive, expensive social entitlement program.
Yes!, it IS politics and yes, it is smart politics, only if the agenda is to push the country towards socialism.

OMR, I don't give a rats tail who termed the phrase "neo-con".
Just DON'T call people or politicians who push the country closer to socialism, further to the left and compromise to the net gain all that socialists hold dear, conservatives.
So pardon me OMR, as long as you attempt to do just that, it is really you who are "helpin' 'em".

That said: you are conducting a 'static analysis' of a complex dynamic situation. Had Ronald Reagan not grown all aspects of our military, (which significantly grew the government) we would have gone to war with the USSR and likely lost. In my view, (which may be far to Liberal for you: President Reagan had no choice and the 200 year old system was there when he got there [with lots of enemies within]), and the results were worth it as well.

Not a "static analysis" just old fashioned fact.
Reagon grew California government as well. And certainly not by the means or reasons you stated.
And lets not forget the very UNconservative, UNConstitutional, Iran/Contra affair. (a winky smiley face here)

 

[QC]

Re: 5/29 Article by Thomas Sowell "A War of Words"

it is smart politics, only if the agenda is to push the country towards socialism

Well . . . hmmmmm . . . I think you give them too much credit. I don't think many of them have any agenda other than staying in power and keeping their jobs . . . Generally, I don't believe that the majority of Dems or Neo-whatevers have any intention of making America Socialist. They do see opportunities for votes by leaning that direction no matter how oblivious they are to the risks of their positions . . .

 

[Skinnywater]

Re: 5/29 Article by Thomas Sowell "A War of Words"

Well . . . hmmmmm . . . I think you give them too much credit. I don't think many of them have any agenda other than staying in power and keeping their jobs . . . Generally, I don't believe that the majority of Dems or Neo-whatevers have any intention of making America Socialist. They do see opportunities for votes by leaning that direction no matter how oblivious they are to the risks of their positions . . .

Hello QC, I understand your point when I consider that many leftists/socialists/welfare/underpriveledged types prefer socialism and the politician is pandering to/representing them.
And I'm sure that you've considered that in their lust for power and keeping their jobs can be better had with socialism.

However it doesn't make sense that a conservative candidate that gets into office by a conservative base would proactively promote socialist programs and abandon conservative ideaology.
Unless the intent is to form a splinter group of left leaning Republicans, lets call them......ummmm....well... neo-cons.

So, rather than this "war of words", lets let the meaning of conservative stand and call the morph something neo.

 

[QC]

Re: 5/29 Article by Thomas Sowell "A War of Words"

However it doesn't make sense that a conservative candidate that gets into office by a conservative base would proactively promote socialist programs and abandon conservative ideaology.

Yeah, I agree, but they are thinking ahead at getting a few fence sitters to head back to the good fight.

So, rather than this "war of words", lets let the meaning of conservative stand and call the morph something neo.

I can live with that. I think after having a few jousts with you over the years that we differ only on our role Internationally and on attempts to undo the last 200 years of mangling the Constitution. I am satisfied with stopping the bleeding first. And I believe we have a moral duty to lead the way, forcefully if we have to . . .

 

[Skinnywater]

Re: 5/29 Article by Thomas Sowell "A War of Words"

.............. we differ only on our role Internationally and on attempts to undo the last 200 years of mangling the Constitution. I am satisfied with stopping the bleeding first. And I believe we have a moral duty to lead the way, forcefully if we have to . . .

Specifically what do you mean by "stopping the bleeding first"?

 

[QC]

Re: 5/29 Article by Thomas Sowell "A War of Words"

I meant that I am satisfied with Congress recognising that they should not be adding new taxes, new programs, new interpretations of the Constitution rather than insisting that they also undo all of the damage already done. You and I have debated that one before. I understood that you believe in more of an all or nothing approach. I see my position as a little more pragmatic . . . weaker, but maybe doable.

 

[Skinnywater]

Re: 5/29 Article by Thomas Sowell "A War of Words"

I meant that I am satisfied with Congress recognising that they should not be adding new taxes, new programs, new interpretations of the Constitution rather than insisting that they also undo all of the damage already done. You and I have debated that one before. I understood that you believe in more of an all or nothing approach. I see my position as a little more pragmatic . . . weaker, but maybe doable.

I misunderstood your position before. I'm glad that you recognise "damage already done" rather then an welcome or acceptable evolution of a living document.

Hopefully we can revisit these differences as dynamics play out.

 

[QC]

Re: 5/29 Article by Thomas Sowell "A War of Words"

I misunderstood your position before. I'm glad that you recognise "damage already done" rather then an welcome or acceptable evolution of a living document.

Heck, I used to be an Income Tax protester . . . Ya know what the original rate was? 1% . . .

 

[QC]

Re: 5/29 Article by Thomas Sowell "A War of Words"

How'd that happen?

 

[OldMercsRule]

Re: 5/29 Article by Thomas Sowell "A War of Words"

Well there's some of that denial regarding "GWB is a very skilled Pol and knows how to govern."

Do you always label an opinion that does not happen to agree with yours: "denial"? That's BS!! The Liberals use that same psycobabble carp. I think I understand politics as well as the next guy, and I also cornsider myself fairly well informed. It is my opinion that GWB knows how to govern. I am not in denial in any way shape or form. You just have a different opinion: That's all Skinny. Please don't practice mind reading or psyco analisys on me over the internet. If we disagree we disagree: no big deal. No need to put me down.

Surely GWB wouldn't have fallen into the same trap that the Dem's pulled on his old man. Remember "read my lips, no new taxes" turned to tax increases by compromising with the Dems, costing him a second term.

So I guess I must be dreaming as GWB did win a second term did he not?

The net result of conservatives compromising with socialists gets you something left of conservative, it always has been.

So I guess you like the Barry Goldwater approach of permenant minority status.

Bush and the historical Republican Congress/Senate were elected by conservatives because they talked a conservative plan.
With that historical event of a Republican executive and legislative branch and a conservative mandate it was foolish and unneccesary to compromise with the dems. That answers your point.

I see it differently. What you call a mandate I see as a very fragile majority where no elected President won a majority of the vote from 1992 until GWB's second term. The 1994 House of Reps had a slim majority to 2006 and the Senate was back and forth. With the Democrat dominance of acedamia and the media, and a apathetic population I see no way to ram things arrogantly down peoples throats. Most Americans want a big nanny government Skinny regardless of how you and I feel.

Now back to one of my points you failed to answer.
In regards to the perscription benefits for medicare program.
It wasn't a compromise, the dems hated it because it was the Republicans beating them at their own game, passing a massive, expensive social entitlement program.
Yes!, it IS politics and yes, it is smart politics, only if the agenda is to push the country towards socialism.

The drug benifit was going to happen, IMHO. GWB's plan is expensive and contrary to my wishes. That said: it is very much better and far cheaper then the Dem alternative. In a Country that is by the people for the people and of the people, ya can't just rule like King Skinny. We will just have to disagree here.

OMR, I don't give a rats tail who termed the phrase "neo-con".
Just DON'T call people or politicians who push the country closer to socialism, further to the left and compromise to the net gain all that socialists hold dear, conservatives.

Skinny we disagree. You want purity and that is not possible in today's USA, IMHO. You can be a one man island with great ideals that totally fails to get anyone behind you or you can compromise and be in the majority that gets things done. It does not knock you out of the Cornservative club to comprimise. We shall have to agree to disagree.

So pardon me OMR, as long as you attempt to do just that, it is really you who are "helpin' 'em".

Think what you will. Cornservatives like you who bite your own kind usually don't ackomplish much in the way of political discourse. All movements have people who push for purity. I don't answer to anyone other then the BIG FELLA, so I will continue to engage as I see fit. Sorry it offends you so much.



Not a "static analysis" just old fashioned fact.
Reagon grew California government as well. And certainly not by the means or reasons you stated.
And lets not forget the very UNconservative, UNConstitutional, Iran/Contra affair. (a winky smiley face here)

As I said earlier Politics is the art of trying to get most of what you want. Reagan was not perfect but he was much much much better then Carter or a potential Mondale. Sorry you didn't like the Gipper. Is there any politician alive today that meets your rigid criteria? JR