2008 Conservative Presidential Candidates

Your point is wel taken. I think that the old school political machines need to evolve. In truth, I am looking at this as as an idea for my Master's degree thesis. I think that today's candidates are not capable of seeing what you and I and other members of this panel can see for ourselves. that blindness comes from SOME generational bias, and the rest stems from their insulated lifestyles.

When it comes tothe war in Iraq, the administration suffers from a profound lack of PR. It's really too late to start the push now, I think too many people are jaded and would not take to it. I've got a few books on my shelf which relate to the propoganda that the Federal government has used in past wars. The unvarnished truth seems to be that today's politicians don't see the need to justify themselves.

If you look at World War Two, Korea, Vietnam, and even the last Gulf war...it's clear that Federally sponsored propoganda has tapered off to a pitiful dribble. It is my opinion that this is due in some part to the centralization of power that has taken place over the last sixty years. The trend has been such that elitism has compelled our leaders to think that they really don't need to explain themselves.

In my own life time, I can remember President Nixon being on the t.v. every time I turned it on. He was there to tell us why "the war in Southeast Asia" was so important. Say what you will, but Tricky Dick was doing his job. Today, Bush43 comes off like he's being inconvenienced whenever he's asked about the war. I watch the weekly Pentagon briefings whenever I get the chance. The atmosphere in those proceddings (as captured by CSPAN) is toxic.

Based on my (limited) findings to date, it looks more and more like the GOP will certain have to go through a metamorphosis that will take 10-20 years before it can be viable once more.

Justin here is my 10 cents without going off topic see my U2U for more of my opinions on the matters you raised.

The conclusion I reached about Bush is that is greatest failure seems to have been the failure to communicate the reasons for going to war in Iraq . For what ever reason the focus was put on Iraq's alleged WMD and Nuclear programs.

The failure to communicate and on top of the incompetence of the Bush admin is the root of both the Bush admin problems. Has we have seen the Bush admin problems have flowed onto the Republican party.

After the invasion of Iraq when ever I heard and saw Bush speak I became more and more convinced that he was out of touch with reality but that's just me.

I wouldn't be surprised if Bush manages to redeem his reputation to a degree . Despite Watergate Nixon used his foreign policy to redeem himself and Truman is remembered as better president then the poll ratings suggested when he left office. A similar thing may even be said for Herbert Hoover.


[edit on 12-4-2007 by xpert11]

[edit on 12-4-2007 by xpert11]

I got your note, and I don't think your analogy was bad. You should use it here. I know Don will have plenty to say when he checks in regarding Presidents and communication.

posted by Justin Oldham
Your point is well taken. I think that the old school political machines need to evolve. In truth, I am looking at this as an idea for my Master's degree thesis. [Edited by Don W]

Most of the early 20th century city machines were operated by Catholics. Finding themselves in an unsympathetic Protestant environment, it was a logical extension of the neighborhood parish’s obligation to help its own poor. At some point in time it became apparent that the “machine” or organization, had more potential than passing out stale bread. Note: I’m not sure of the religious preference of Ed Crump, “boss” of Memphis. The machines in Boston, Providence, NYC, Newark, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Cleveland, Detroit, Chicago, St. Louis, Kansas City and my own Louisville, were Catholic. As it turned out, these same bosses who had first chosen Al Smith for president, then hit on a near-Catholic, a crippled Episcopalian named Franklin Roosevelt for the 1932 run. Desperation or genius? End.

The Reform Movement of the Democratic Party killed the old machines. I believe this occurred between 1968 and 1972. From then on, wily and shrewd pols who had their fingers on the pulse of the nation would be locked out of the nominating process. The GOP reform followed 4 years later.

And here we are today. The longest primary electing campaign in our history and maybe in the history of the world. Only a super-rich country could afford that. UNLESS the world's longest most expensive campaign will produce the world's smartest and best president? Good Gawd A’mighty! Why can’t we limit the electoral process to 45 days, primary, and 45 days, general? Is the whole nation gone mad?

Candidates today are not capable of seeing what members of this panel can see for ourselves. That blindness comes from SOME generational bias and the rest stems from their insulated lifestyles. When it comes to the war in Iraq, the administration suffers from a profound lack of PR. It's really too late to start the push now, I think too many people are jaded and would not take to it.

Aesop’s Fable. The shepherd boy cried wolf! It is so with Bush43. He has mis-stated the truth too many times. He has ignored reality too often. His speeches do not deal with the reality on the ground in Iraq. To add fuel to this self-started fire, Bush43 has threatened Congress with a veto before the bill has been passed. TOO early to make threats. Let’em speculate. Wait until the bill is presented. Then you have 10 days. Sundays excepted
for you a Christian nation types.

Bush43 said he wanted to cooperate with the newly elected Democratic 110th Congress. So? He fires Rumsfeld without consultation. He hires Gates without consultation. He removes Negroponte without consultation. He installs McFellon as DNI without consultation. He rejects the ISG Report out of hand, and without consultation. During the Easter recess, he makes 3 interim appointments, one an ambassador to Belgium who sponsored the 2004 ‘527' Swift Boats slander on John Kerry.

Co-operate? What’s that?

In my life time, I remember President Nixon being on the t.v. every time I turned it on. He was there to tell us why "the war in Southeast Asia" was so important. Say what you will, but Tricky Dick was doing his job. Today, Bush43 comes off like he's being inconvenienced whenever he's asked about the war. I watch the weekly Pentagon briefings when I get the chance. The atmosphere in those proceedings (as captured by CSPAN) is toxic. Based on my limited findings to date, it looks more and more like the GOP will certainly have to go through a metamorphosis that will take 10-20 years before it can be viable once more. [Edited by Don W]

I have just finished the book, “American Tragedy: Kennedy, Johnson, and the Origins of the Vietnam War” 2004, by David Kaiser. The inner circle in both JFK and LBJ numbered 4 or 5 men. McNamara was always the super-hawk. McGeorge Bundy was only slightly more cautious. Dean Rusk was ambivalent at best. The 4th and 5th man was not always the same person. Yes, those inside men also had their own advisors, which would bring the total involved in decision making to 15-20. JFK refused constant urging by his advisors to ramp up our effort in SV. South Vietnam. Even at that, when JFK was killed, we had 22,000 men in SV.

LBJ on the other hand surprised me. He was still in shock by the assassination for several months. He had not participate d in any high level discussions. It was all brand new to him. Just as Harry Truman had the “world dropped on him” so also did LBJ. But Johnson was much different in one respect than JFK. Unlike his predecessor, Johnson did not seek to avoid a war in Southeast Asia. Like a later Texan, “if it’s to be war, bring it on!” I suggest you begin your Master’s dissertation here, Mr J/O.

[edit on 4/12/2007 by donwhite]

Here's one for you. Does the firing of Don Imus signal anything sinister for the rest of talk radio? Do the conservative radio guys have anything to fear?

As many of you know, I'm debating with xpert11 on the pros and cons of internment camps for illegals. You might want to check it out. Some good reading there.

Everybody have a good weekend.

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
Here's one for you. Does the firing of Don Imus signal anything sinister for the rest of talk radio? Do the conservative radio guys have anything to fear?
.

Conservative radio guys don't have anything to fear. What happened to Imus is something that Americans may not be aware happens unless they have seen from the outside in.

Let me explain.
Remember Janet Jacksons wardrobe malfunction at the Superbowl ?
Now think back to the TV news coverage Americans watched on there TVs. Most of it consisted of some outraged person being interviewed while the clip of Janets wardrobe function was played over and over again.
Anyone who didn't see the incident when it first happened was bound to have been exposed to it by the TV news networks. What I am getting at is how the TV networks created a storm in a tea cup and no Americans seem to think other wise.

I'm in no way defending what Imus has said but I am pointing out that what I described above as happened. As for the Republican candidates they should remain silent on the issue I can see no value gained in them entering this storm in a tea cup. Of course they will need a response when someone asks them what they think of the Imus situation.

So the question is when asked about Imus comments and firing what should a Republican candidate's response be ?

Originally posted by xpert11
Conservative radio guys don't have anything to fear.

With all due respect, I think I iwll have to disagree. Conservative radio hosts do have a lot to worry about ,and it could very well have a bearing on the 2008 Presidentail races.

The Republicans have benefitted mightily from the propoganda value afforded to them by the success of conservative talk radio. The opposition has been looking for a way to undo them for almost twenty years. I think that the "takedown" of Don Imus will provide them with just enough incentive to revisit the 'problem.'

Over the last 72 hours, I've been listening to every conservative talking head I could find, and they'll all been 'fessing up about the potentially racial or otherwise insensitive things they may have said over the years. they know that atlest one ofthem is "next." I will agree for just one reason.

The reactionary forces that made such a big public stink about Imus are now celebrating their victory. Now tha they've had a taste, they'll want to do it again. Imus was no liberal, but neither was he a true conservative. Bot sides in the radio wars have said some mighty unfriendly things. The conservatives as a group are older than their opposition in terms of chronological ages. As such, they tend to say thing which are not so bad from their point of view, but they do tend to veer in to risky territory at times due to age-related bias.

As a mattter of simple political tactics, I am concerend that the opposition would like to take down just one radio personality from the conservative ranks just because it could be good for them right after the February primaries in 2008. I'm not wild about admitting this, but if I were a paid strategiest for the Dems...I'd be taking a hard and serious look at this. the long-term implications are significant. especially if what you want is a Democrat super majority.

All do respect is noted. If political forces can remove a few conservative radio hosts there may be a short term gain in terms of 2008 but there are two other things to bear in mind.

The first is that Fox News is still around enough said even thou a Fox News broadcasts in differnt medium.
The second is that the dems haven't removed the demand for conservative radio hosts. For as long as enough people tune in another person will take the place of the host who has been fired. After a while the shock value wears and so will the dems attacks until a new angle is found.

I suppoose we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Now that they have been shown the way, I do think that liberal headhunters will be looking to bring down atleast one big name conservative radio personality.

posted by Justin Oldham
Here's one for you. (1) Does the firing of Don Imus signal anything sinister for the rest of talk radio? (2) Do the conservative radio guys have anything to fear? (3) As many of you know, I'm debating with xpert11 on the pros and cons of internment camps for illegal’s. You might want to check it out. Some good reading there. [Edited by Don W]

1) No.

2) No

3) Will do.

This incident confirmed that MSNBC and CBS have no conscience nor any sense of obligation created by the privilege of communicating but when the image conscious advertisers like GM and P&G saw a real potential downturn following the incident, each of them, MSNBC and CBS reluctantly fired Imus.

In the case of MSNBC which first imposed a 14 days suspension on Imus, the rumor quickly surfaced that he would be paid as if he was working. If true, that meant Imus was getting an extra paid vacation, surely a reward! How cynical can a corporate executive be? It would be interesting to learn how each of those “electronic pimps” deal with the Imus contracts. I suppose any such contract would contain a “for cause” clause, relieving the contracting party of future obligations.

What I expect is Imus will want to make a settlement to avoid further damage - if possible - to his image. I heard he was making $5 m. a year. Recall how quickly Rush Limbaugh, a lifetime pro football fan, lost his NFL “color commentator” job - no pun intended - after he aired his sincerely held belief but purely racist evaluation of black quarterbacks?

It must be true those right wing commentators have a devout - not devoted but devout - following. The broadcasters constantly reenforce the narrow minded, self centered interest of those simplistic folk. It warns us that America is not all that different from the 1930s Germany. How otherwise good people in Nazi Germany can be mislead into doing bad things. Herr Goebbels said it, “A big lie, told often enough, becomes the truth.”

[edit on 4/14/2007 by donwhite]

Given tha the Republican party is so fragctured at this time, I think it will hurt them when the opposition comes after their best advocates. That would be talk radio. As a political strategist, I would say that the tactic is worth using only because it will work. I'm not wild about having it used on my team, but I am willing to acknowledge the tactical value of it.

It has taken me a while to dig around, but I don't find anyting currently on the books that would suggest that any of the Presidential candidates on eitehr side are at risk of being taken down for reasons of racial slander. I do think that certain of the conservative radio show hosts are vulnerable to such things.

Clear channel communications has already moved to protect Rush Limbaugh from his self-inflicted Michal J. Fox boo-boo. Neil Boortz, among others, has been back-pedalling on quite a few remarks he's made in recent years. Yes, I am aware that a number of liberal talk show hosts have been saying some very prejudicial things about hard-right Christians.

So far, the candidates have wisely stayed away from this topic. That's just what I would council if I was on their payroll. This week's news cycle will be dominated by the appearance of Alberto Gonzalez on Capitol Hill as he testifies before Congress. If the Republicans are lucky, the media will stay fixated on the A.G. for the rest of the month.

Each of the conservative candidates does need a rehearsed canned answer in their back pocket. It's only a matter of time before they will have to weigh in on this. Thre will be some temptation to turn on Bush, and it'll be interesting to see who does...and who does not.

posted by Justin Oldham

The Republican party is fractured . . I think it will hurt them when the opposition comes after their best advocates . . talk radio. As a political strategist, I am willing to acknowledge the tactical value of [attacking] it.

I don't find anything suggesting any presidential candidate on either side is at risk for reasons of racial slander. I think that certain conservative radio talk show hosts are

 

vulnerable to such [criticism].

Clear Channel Communications has moved to protect Rush Limbaugh . . Yes, I am aware a number of liberal talk show hosts have been saying some very prejudicial things about hard-right Christians. [Edited by Don W]

Would you confirm “Liberal” vs. “Conservative” talk show’s audiences run about 90/10 to 95/05 in favor of the Conservatives? As for throwing bricks that is “normal” for today’s talk radio. I’m so weary of punch-counter punch that I listen to neither.

Q. Is “liberal” talk radio centered in the Northeast?

So far the candidates have stayed away from this topic. That's just what I would counsel if I was on their payroll. This week's news cycle will be dominated by the appearance of Alberto Gonzalez on Capitol Hill as he testifies before Congress. If the Republicans are lucky, the media will stay fixated on the AG for the rest of the month. Each of the conservative candidates needs a rehearsed canned answer in their back pocket. It's only a matter of time before they will have to weigh in on this. There will be temptation to turn on Bush, and it'll be interesting to see who does and who does not. [Edited by Don W]

I saw a long clip of Mitt Romney on CSpan1 yesterday and he seemed to avoid any mention of B43 by name. That indicates to me his polling shows continuous Bush-bashing is not “selling” well with the audience he is aiming at. He was so strident on the long in the tooth abortion issue - it seemed to me unnecessarily so - that he must be pushing hard to capture that smallish 10% of the GOP voters. A Pat Buchanan re-born? Later I heard an interview with a columnist in the Des Moines Register who implied - indirectly and not in response to a direct question - that Iowans are not single issues voters, at least in 2007.

[edit on 4/15/2007 by donwhite]

Or is the "conservative movement" dead?

Sure seems so.

Please enlighten.

I'll avoid posting pictures of Gouliani in drag for the moment.

posted by RANT

" . . is the "conservative movement" dead? Sure seems so. Please enlighten. [Edited by Don W]

I think Justin Oldham in particular and maybe Xpert11 as well, have said they fear the conservative aurora around Bush43 has dissipated, largely blamed on the failure of the Neo Con driven Iraq adventure. This is not far from what (newly hopeful) Newt Gingrich is repeating to all who will listen. He is offering to be the fail safe candidate. Or is it “fall back?” J/O, X11 as well as others are more legitimate commentators on the conservative scene, as I have a hard to impossible time accommodating my world view to that one.

Mitt Romney - they say he is a billionaire but he's no Ross Perot - raised the most money in the 1st quarter of ‘07 but his poll numbers show his message is not resonating. Despite his heavy social issues baggage, the numbers put the single notable accomplishment of NYC Nine Eleven Event Mayor Giuliani way out in front! And he’s followed by a non-candidate cancer ridden Fred Thompson, the ex-senator from Tennessee turned tv land Law & Order DA.

You figure.

I think many observers say America is about 5%-10% liberal, 15%-20% ambivalent leaving 70%-80% as conservative to ultra, both socially and economically speaking. America has experienced only one Liberal Era, the 1932-1938 New Deal era. Johnson’s 1964-1966 liberal enactments might qualify as a second Liberal era, but it was to a considerable extent driven by a national remorse aroused by JFK’s untimely death. It was no national sea change as it had been in 1932.

Since 1980, the unexpected accommodating tenure of Richard Nixon aside, we have witnessed an ever weakening holding action by 15-20 Democratic senators and maybe 1 or 2 Republican senators against a seemingly inexorable anti-liberal national retrograde. The money-mongers have landed and the situation is well in hand!

[edit on 4/15/2007 by donwhite]

Originally posted by RANT
Or is the "conservative movement" dead?
Please enlighten.

Well Goldwater would turn over in his grave if he knew how the Republican party had been hijacked by Christian extremists. On the economic front the Republican party dance is out of tune with the music.
American farmers still receive subsides unlike there NZ counter parts. In general what I term corporate socialism is practised. Its a bit of a joke to go round preaching the free market when you give handouts to corporations and farmers.

And yes I am aware that the dems practice corporate socialism but were dealing with the Republican party here.

I will leave it to people like Justin to act as the jury on this one.



[edit on 15-4-2007 by xpert11]

Conservatism, as it was once known, is dead. At its very core, "real" conservatism was what you might call small government advocacy. It took more than just politics to kill small government conservatism. The simple fact is that we've become such an afluent nation that it eventually became impossible for anyone to advocate for the notion that small and less intrusive is better.

There's a phenomina that is peculiar to humans. Some of us can handle money and fame. Others just can't do it. Money becomes poison and fame becomes an addictive drug. The same thing can be said of the American political system. The majority of voters have access to so much of everything that they just don't care about anything. Politicians are guilty of the same sins. If more is better...more must be better. Even when it comes to government.

We have all known people who make lots of money. They've got all the good toys, but they are hip deep in debt. We've all known poor people. Nicest folks you will ever meet, without a thing to their name. Guess who's really good their money?

I like to think that we are on the verge of a new social paradigm. I am reminded of my great grandmother, and what she told me. "We had it really good from 1900 to 1929. When we lost it all, we prayed. 'Please give us another shot a prosperity. We promise we'll do better with it next time.' And you know what? We did!"

Sad to say, but I think we are due for another "lesson."

posted by Justin Oldham

Conservatism, as it was once known, is dead. At its core, "real" conservatism was small government advocacy. It took more than just politics to kill small government conservatism. The simple fact is that we became such an affluent nation that it eventually became impossible for anyone to advocate for the notion that small and less intrusive is better.

There's a phenomena peculiar to humans. Some of us can handle money and fame. Others just cannot. Money becomes poison and fame becomes addictive. The same thing can be said of the American political system. The majority of voters have access to so much of everything that they just don't care about anything. Politicians are guilty of the same sins. If more is better . . [much] more must be [much] better. Even when it comes to [size of] government. [Edited by Don W]

Here I come again! An example. During the halcyon days of the New Deal, the Dept of Agriculture established the County Agent program. Every county in America got at least one Federal employee who was to offer advice to that county’s farmers. The best crops to plant. The best way to prepare the soil. Care of the land by crop rotation. Agronomics. Not every farmer was born prescient. Change can be better. Science can help. Farmers are too busy farming to engage in experimentation, to make soil evaluations, to fit their land for better use. Enter the County Agent.

Humor me, play there are 3,500 counties in the 50 states. 70 each. On average. Some counties in such stats as WY and ND might have more cows and horses than people. Others like NYC’s Westchester and Queens counties might have neither farm animals nor crop growing land. But when you’re in a hurry to write laws, leave the minor details alone. Let the executive branch write regulations to cover those variations.

Sure, on the assumption that one job is equal to 4 or 5 votes, the executive branch is not likely to strangle itself. And FDR being shrewd even if he can’t walk on water, puts a couple cousins or unemployable nephews of the most senior Members of Congress on the payroll. An old fashioned quid pro quo. One hand washes the other.

Some counties like those in the Imperial Valley in CA need more than 1 agent. Pretend that the country “needs” 10,000 county agents. “Need” in this instance means there is at least 40 hours of useful work to do each week. The size alone of the program - number of agents - should not itself justify opposition. If the program is useful if the program is well managed if the service is delivered economically and if the country is getting good advice (value) for its tax dollar, then I say again, its size is irrelevant.

That is why I protest the litany of big government ipso facto bad.

I like to think that we are on the verge of a new social paradigm. I am reminded of my great grandmother who told me. "We had it really good from 1900 to 1929. When we lost it all, we prayed. 'Please give us another shot at prosperity. We promise we'll do better with it next time.' And you know what? We did!" Sad to say, but I think we are due for another "lesson."

Historical reminisces. America’s first two presidents, Washington and Adams, were strong central government advocates, called Federalists. In the sea change election of 1800, the Republicans - Jefferson and Madison - won the day and those who favored a weak central government, today’s “state’s rights” advocates.

At some point in time and I don’t know when, the Jeffersonians came to be called Democratic-Republicans. After 1800, the Federalist Party morphed into the Whig Party. Later, after James Monroe’s 2 terms, the Whigs disintegrated. The Dem-Reps split into 2 wings, the Northern and Southern, over the issue of slavery. The Northern half was itself split into an abolition wing and a toleration - no expansion of slavery - wing.

Andrew Jackson was the first non-patrician president. No Founding Father he. Jackson was unique in American presidential history. He refused to enforce the Supreme Court’s’ decision in favor of the Cherokee’s in the Georgia and Carolinas gold rush dispute. Under his orders, the Army forced the Native Americans out of their homeland. State’s rights advocates in Georgia put their land up for sale by way of a lottery with the Indians banned from participating. The Army’s Trail of Tears forced march of Cherokees to Oklahoma gave us a precursor to the Bataan Death March, except the Trail of Tears killed between 5,000 and 10,000 Indians - we don’t count collateral damage - while the Japanese killed just over 3,000. We labeled the Japanese as inhuman barbarians. We revere Andrew Jackson as an American icon. Ethnocentrism?

OTOH, when South Carolina’s powerful Sen. Calhoun threatened to secede SC from the Union unless the Congress repealed high import duties, Jackson declared that he personally would lead troops to SC and he, Jackson, would hang him, Calhoun, by the neck! Calhoun stopped any further braggadocio during Jackson’s term. You might conclude Calhoun believed Jackson.

The unresolved issue of state’s rights culminated in 1861 when 11 states asserted they possessed the legal right to UN-JOIN the union. There would be 2 separate arguments offered. Maybe 2 ½. The original colonies as founders, would be on different legal footing than those admitted to the Union after 1789. The first were VA, NC, SC and GA. The others were FL, AL, MS, AR and TN; states admitted by Congress would argue from a different perspective. TX was one more variation on the second theme, TX having been an independent country prior to its admission into the Union. In fact, TX was “annexed” on its request.

Lincoln said “No.” The Constitution was silent on withdrawing from the Union. Lincoln claimed secession violated his oath of office and was also extra-constitutional. That is, outside the constitution. Lincoln apparently thought - as I have always argued - that the 9th and10th Amendments are rhetorical. Only.

Let’s read the presidential oath of office: “I do solemnly swear or affirm that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the UNITED States and will to the best of my ability, PRESERVE, protect and DEFEND the Constitution of the United States.” Article 2, Sec. 1, Clause 8. Caps are mine for emphasis. We (me) thought that long festering issue - state’s rights versus Federal power - had been settled with the spilling of the blood of 620,000 men and expending the treasure of the country in the War of the Rebellion, a/k/a the Civil War between 1861 and 1865. A state cannot secede. Once in, you’re in for good. Make the most of it.

The next sea change (after 1800 and 1861-65) in American history came in 1913. The adoption of the 16th Amendment. Prior to 1913, the United States really did have a small government which must make TRUE small government types salivate in a forlorn anticipation of restoring the pre-1913 world. But alas, clocks back you cannot roll. My Yiddish. Prior to 1913, the Federal government was limited in revenue to what it could raise by 1) the sale or leasing of Federal lands, 2) import duties and 3) excise taxes. Chicken feed, you might say.

For example, the Federal government did not build the Erie Canal. NY did. Our standing Army was small. The Secret Service was organized to stop counterfeiters. Not to protect the president. The most highly sought after Federal job before 1913 was Collector of Customs for the Port of NYC. Chester A. Arthur held that job before being elected vice president. The 16th Amendment was the work product of Theodore Roosevelt, although William Howard Taft was president when it was proposed to the states in 1909. Woodrow Wilson was president when it became law, in 1913, just in time to finance our hugely expensive entry into World War One.

From that time onward, life would never be the same.

Fast forward. Republicans never stopped fighting FDR and the New Deal. A large majority of Americans held both in high regard. But not everyone. FDR’s first memorable political miscalculation came in 1937. FDR proposed to Congress a law that would allow him to appoint an Associate Justice to the Supreme Court for each sitting Justice over the age of 70. FDR had made no appointments in his first 4 years in office. The Court had routinely ruled 6 to 3 against many New Deal laws. Worse, it had blocked the 2 center pieces of the New Deal, the pro urban NRA and the pro rural AAA. National Recovery Act - the Blue Eagle law - and the Agriculture Adjustment Act, setting minimum prices for farm commodities.

If Congress passed that law, FDR would immediately have 4 appointments to make, giving him an anticipated 7 to 6 majority. Raising the number of justices from the 9 set in the 1820s to a new high of 13. Once there had been 10 justices. But, as God had divided the week into 7 days, so it seemed God had set the number of SC justices at 9. I don’t know the particulars of that struggle, but the GOP opposition won it and got to name it, as FDR’s “Court Packing” Scheme. OTOH, the plan must have impressed the sitting justices, because thereafter, they began to approve many New Deal laws 5 to 4. 2 justices had changed sides.

Republicans never gave up. Did you know the GOP pledged in its Party platform in 1940, 1944 and 1948, to repeal Social Security if it was elected? It was Ike in 1952 who decided to leave that one out of the GOP offering. Bush43 tried again to do the same in 2005. Republicans never give up.

We are still locked in the same struggle we began in earnest in 1800. Central government versus regional or state government. That debate is all mixed up with taxation, who pays and who does not, areas of responsibility such as use of Federal lands, management of our southern border with Mexico, health care, education, transportation, and so many other issues that transcend state boundaries that to us who favor a strong central government, we cannot even imagine any other way to work it out in the 21st century. With grapes from Peru, avocados from Nicaragua, pineapples from Costa Rica, oranges from Brazil and manufactured goods from China, it is impossible for any state - save perhaps CA and NY - to even try to impose health standards and assurance of safety and quality of imported goods.

Small government types, get over it. It’s nostalgia over reality.

[edit on 4/16/2007 by donwhite]

Don's brief history lesson documents and demonstrates the many successes of pro-Federalist forces. I won't deny any of it. I have said here and elswhere that anti-Federalist forces have been broken and scattered. The current state of today's GOP Presidential candidates underscores the point.

I understand and accept that my small government point of view is likely to be in the minority for the rest of my life. I plead guilty to the charge of idealism, without repentence. Whatever the reformed Republican party turns in to, it won't be an opposition to big government. It may one day resurface as a fiscally conservative party, but that's doubtful. My crystal ball is good, but not that good.

Having said all this, i am not prepared to to be a hermit. Like any good fighter, I've got adapt. In much the same way as the Grand Old Party will reinvent, I will do the same. I would be a bad Conspiracy Master if I couldn't.

I have to bring this up how dose the Virginia Tech shootings effect the Republican candidates campaigns ?
The truth be told even if the only respectable thing is done and that is put political considerations aside while people grieve. Beyond that no pro gun control lobbyist could buy the impact or media coverage that has stemmed from the Virginia Tech shooting.

Incidents like this harden people views on both sides of the gun control argument. Rudy campaign could be hurt by those who dislike his stance on gun control.

In terms of propriety, the Republican candidates need to express their remorse and make a show of solemnity. They should make no effort to say, "year but..." those who cahampion gun control will do no matter what the extent of the tragedy. After the fact, assuming that the candidates have acted with that prescribed propriety, they will be able to fire back with charges of ghoulish pandering.