One user gave me an idea about republicans. For any republicans, can you list what the modern republican party (Nixon and onward) has done good for America and what they have stood for which has made American go in a good direction. For the life of me I cant think of even one, but Im probably not looking at it all properly.

Btw I asked Nixon and onward because the Republican part pre-Nixon was hugely different from the Republican party of today and the pre-Nixon Republican presidents were pretty good to decent in what they did as president.

You really don't want to start with Nixon, cuz you just lost.

Nixon:
1. Opening relations with China
2. creating detente with the Soviet Union
3. SALT Treaty
4. Negotiating an end to the Vietnam war.
5. Declaring war on cancer
6. Ordering a halt to the production and R&D of US chemical weapons
7. first steps towards ending the draft
8. lowering the voting age to 18
9. Major environmental programs (he started the EPA)
10. the only president to have a balanced budget between 61 and 98


there are many more, my friend is kind of a nixon buff. But liberals would be surprised how much they actually agreed with Nixon on. People just remember Watergate and think thats all there was to him, I say if thats all you know, learn more before you try and make this kind of thread.

Just a comment on item 1 and a personal question:

Item 1 relations with china is a disaster they have a 1 party system and therefore can "do"capitalism better then we can. In time they will be the top dog in numerous fields while this might have happened anyway, Nixon sped up the process that isnt a positive in my view. On the contrary we have lost millions of jobs to thier superior manufacturing (IE lack of organized labor) because he went over there.

Personal question: are you a republican Maine? I took you as a conservative leaning toward the libertarian side.

As for the first part, one could say we can't live without China and would not be where we are today without it, whether that is good or not, yes can be judged differently. Personally i believe in globalization from an economic standpoint, but we need to pressure China into competing fairly (actually float your damn currency) and we need to quit adding fuel to the fire by devaluing our currency through over spending by government and consumers.


I'm probably still registered republican, mainly to vote in the primaries as such. I have typically voted republican because economic values are my most pressing concern. I also used to work as a republican/conservative operative. Running my college group and the grassroots for a congressional campaign. That being said i'm disgusted with the GOP, sick and tired of the religious right and probably ready to vote for the right libertarian candidate, or even dem if they had my beliefs, by no mean am I locked into the GOP, just that they usually hit my most important issues the closest.

Fair points raised but the question was

I dont believe Nixon engaging china was good for america, to drill it down further we now know it certainly wasnt good for american manufacturing.



thanks for the reply, I was disqualified from being a republican many moons ago for 3 core reasons:

1. I dont believe liberals are bad people
2. I am not a christian
3. I believe in a womans right to choose.

Those 3 proclude me from ever proclaiming I am a republican, however, like you I do vote for conservatives mostly but I have and will again vote for dems. Thanks for the response to the personal question, cheers.

Well I listed many other things, but for that. Then you don't believe in globalization. I love economics and one of the most important principles is that of comparative advantage. Country A is skilled at making Item X, Country B is better at Item Z, A & B could both create both X&Y or A could focus on X and B could focus on Z and they can trade. The latter situation actually benefits them both more by more efficiently using both countries resources.

This is whats happening in America, due to our post industrial economy, our wages, benefits, regulations etc.. are higher, we can not compete in manufacturing, what we can compete on is innovation, (obviously US based service), research and design, hi-tech industries etc... It simply does not make sense for us to have a massive manufacturing industry at this point, it's actually detrimental to our economy. Due to comparative advantage.


1. not all republicans belive liberals are bad people and I could switch that up pretty easy and say I was denied being a democrat because I don't believe all conservatives are bad people, the pure fact is both parties have far too many sheep, that listen to the Rush's and the Moores and don't think for themselves, nothing I hate more than a sheep.

2. I consider myself a christian, but i do not believe in enforced morality, your morals are your own and you can express them and encourage others, but you actually harm your cause when you try and enforce them on others.

3. I waffle on this, as a lot of libertarians do. It depends on when you grant rights to the child. But there are pro-choice republicans, where do you live? All New England Republicans typically are personally pro-life but govern as pro-choice.

You did list others, but the china thing was the only thing I had issue with. Globalization is wonderful when its based on free trade and fairness. The chinese have an advantage inherent in thier labor system, and we have a handicap inherent in our entitlement culture given to unions historically. Your A,B,X examples are fine, if its an equal playing field which I dont believe it is.



It is happening in america but my question to you is, would it be happening in america at this scale if Nixon had not gone to China? Of course we cant say absolutely but I suspect we would have a lot less Nike shorts for 9.99 that are made by chinese labor. You make the point we cant compete in manufacturing, which is accurate but you didnt include the driver which is consumption. Consumption drives the market and we consume, if we had not opened this relationship with china our consumption would, in my view have created a situation where we would be competitive at least more so then we are now. You also stated "at this point" and I am not disputing the current reality, I am disputing that the current reality is a positive outcome, from an action taken by a republican president you listed.



I was being cute in my reply, point taken and conceded.



Again I was being semi cute but non christians dont get a seat at the growns ups table, at least in my opinion but yes I shouldnt use a broad brush to paint a picture, semi concession here....



I make it rather simple, if it has a heart beat its alive, if you kill it and it dosent have a chance to defend itself you have committed murder. I support a womans choice to terminate the life of a child she is carrying, I also support her being subject to federal or state laws of 1st degree murder along with her Dr who helped her as it was a premeditated act.

Again I was being cute

aren't you so cute

haha


I do agree china has some advantages namely in how they run their economy, the fixing of the currency is my biggest pet peeve.

But It isn't only china, what of Taiwan, South Korea, India especially now. China isn't the only country to mass produce cheap goods for Americans, I don't think we can blame nixon for the failure of buying american and losing our manufacturing, that would have happened with or without china, what he might have done by opening up relations with china is prevent WW3 and us just killing each other (though that might still happen too).

I'm a liberal person I'm British so I'm not an official democrat but if I lived in America I'd have voted Democrat, however I don't blind myself into saying to opposition hasn't done anything good.

A huge part of the black community in America owe many of their groups and programs to Nixon, his "Declaring war on Cancer" wasn't just a party line or a slogan, the man did more for cancer research than any other politician, American or British or any others that I can think of. Lowering the voting age has done wonders for so many people and has changed the future of politics and I think, for the better.

He was one of the most open and honest presidents you guys have ever had. I know what happened at the end, but you can't ignore the good he did. Same goes for Clinton as well

Also

1) I don't believe all republicans/conservatives are bad people

2) Not Christian

3) Pro choice

a free thinker who doesn't demonize the enemy, keep it like this your whole life man!

I'll just put up the 1991 Gulf War. That seems to have pretty universal agreement these days

Well the other issues is that this thread is doomed no matter what.

Anything a GOP'er says is a good thing a DNC'er probably disagrees with.... so its rather retarded.

Welfare reform in the late 90s.

Meh.
This topic is designed to fail.

boy, your post sure is making things better

lol.

Sorry, I started to write something, then realized it was just going to turn into a "No that sucks!" or "No, the Democrats did that not the Republicans!" thread, so I bailed.

"My bad"... as the kids say.

We Conservatives identify ourselves with the Republican Party and will try to vote out all of the liberal republicans (McCain, Graham, Snowe) and replace them with Conservatives who actually agree with our principles and values. And to all of you who want to pull a Perot or Paul and go third party, listen to Reagan

"I have to say I cannot agree with some of my friends—perhaps including some of you here tonight—who have answered that question by saying this nation needs a new political party.

I respect that view and I know that those who have reached it have done so after long hours of study. But I believe that political success of the principles we believe in can best be achieved in the Republican Party. I believe the Republican Party can hold and should provide the political mechanism through which the goals of the majority of Americans can be achieved. For one thing, the biggest single grouping of conservatives is to be found in that party. It makes more sense to build on that grouping than to break it up and start over. Rather than a third party, we can have a new first party made up of people who share our principles. I have said before that if a formal change in name proves desirable, then so be it. But tonight, for purpose of discussion, I’m going to refer it simply as the New Republican Party."
Full Speech http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1968211/posts

Not to mention Nixon proposed nationalized healthcare. Too bad he couldn't get it through.

I was pointing out the good things republicans have done, not the bad... didn't you get the purpose of the thread

Reagan at least brought people together the republicans of today, kick people out who don't go lockstep with him.

he focused on big broad conservative goals that we all could agree on.

The republican party is hardly conservative today.

Nixon did most of the above as a result of liberal pressure. Do you really believe ending the draft, lowering the voting age, pulling out of Vietnam, the EPA, and detente came from Republican lobbying?

We can vote for the conservative candidates in all areas of government and not reelect the McCain types and the other leftists who hold these positions. Third Party will only lead to more leftist Democratic victories, we should instead try to make it more conservative and vote out the liberals who vote with the left. Reagan defeated liberal Ford people and the Rockefeller Republicans and he remade the party into a Conservative Republican Party. Third party is not the answer

You and I would disagree what conservative is, and let me tell you it has nothing to do with the bible.

You'd be surprised by what Nixon believe in, it may have not come from republican lobbying, but it does not mean he did not support these things. Also the question was about presidents and what they did, not who lobbied them.

I'm pretty much in agreement with you here; If the modern GOP was similar to much of the philosophies that Nixon (and Ike, Ford) governed by, I'd actually consider voting for them. I think that moreso than Reagan and really any cold-war president, that Nixon did the most to end the cold war by opening up China, and pitting China and the USSR against one another having US as the mediators. How brilliant.




Well, as stated before, I think the biggest problem with China's practices are mostly their currency manipulation. Even though they've done a little bit to address the problem, at this current rate, they still have a highly unfair advantage over Americans (and other countries) by making their Yuan artificially high. That means their exports are cheaper here in America, making them more competitive than they otherwise be, and that means their imports from America are more expensive, making it even more difficult for America to establish a market foothold.

In the medium-long-term, as China grows, fixes or floats their currency, improves wages and standards of living, we'll definitely see this trade imbalance much significantly reduced or nearly eliminated. And the thing is, China MUST do all those things aforementioned, lest they want to see a financial crisis and/or a 90s Japanese-style depression from too little consumption in their economy. And, do not forget, the Communist Party will not be around forever. Be prepared to see significant government changes and liberalization during a year when Chinese GDP growth is negative...

In any event, our wages are simply now too high for many industries like textiles. If not to China, then Nike would outsource this to Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, etc.; historically, low-wage, low-skilled industries like textiles are excellent for moving a nation's development up the economic ladder. And, while teh ebil unions may have contracts requiring ridiculous things like health care for their employees, our general costs of employment are going to increase as health care costs rises. That's why many foreign auto-manufacturers choose Canada over the US now. Basically, there are quite a number of factors other than the evil China giant involved in the decline of American manufacturing.


ahh yes, the FIRST war for oil . Oh well, at least it actually succeeded.


yes Yes YES! Please, purge your party even more. That way we can be sure that we'll never have the GOP running Congress or the White House again. I can live by that. Embrace Rush Limbaugh. And I'll embrace Democratic supermajorities in Congress.

beyond the partisan nature of your points there, it raises an important issue. Because of the way the House and Senate currently work, both parties are forced to be broad churches, and any party that tries to "vote out all of the liberal republicans" or vote out all of the blue dog democrats" will narrow their base to the point where they will find it hard to get elected in sufficient numbers to control congress.And Republican march to the right, or Democrat march to the left, will be a death march from an electoral relevance point of view, with the party that appeases its moderates the most having the most chance of taking power. It's the reason why Arlen Spector, Susan Collins, and Olympia Snowe are power brokers in the Senate. They are the democrats and Republicans most likely to break party lines and vote their consciences, something that makes them invaluable in a vote to the party that treats them right.

This is not a purge, People want Conservatives representing them, not liberals who further the big government agenda. The Republican Party is a wide tent and open to many. Also uhh :| Looks like the Democrats are going to lose around 20 or more seats in 2010 and Obama will be a one termer :]

Does your definition mean the support of traditional institutions and customs, aristocracies, land-owners, monarchs, tariffs, religious institutions, and oppression of minorities and women?

Boy are there so many definitions of conservatism. I think one of the real problems with the GOP looking for 'true conservatives' are the fact that there is no real example of a successful president acting in what you claim is 'conservative', including Reagan. Really, the closest presidents to those regards in the 20-21st century are Hoover, Coolidge and Taft; not exactly the most successful or popular presidents I must say.

please provide some evidence that "people want conservatives representing them", as the last few elections don't bear this out at all.

Abe Lincoln: Helping Oppress Minorities since 1863

well you are both wrong here actually lam. A large number of the seats gained in the last 2 elections were conservative seats that Emanuel went out and recruited blue dog democrats for. They voted against republicans not conservatives.

But he is wrong of course because as you said before making your party a small tent is suicide.

god I thought you were supporting him, i was bout to flip out at someone thinking the Dictator was a great leader.

More people describe themselves as conservative than liberal in all 50 states minus DC. http://www.gallup.com/poll/122333/Politica...ails-South.aspx
Democrats have to run as conservatives or moderates in order to win elections and a lot of people fell into the HOPE AND CHANGE crap and the end to red states and blue states etc.

What's wrong with being partisan? I'd say the exactly the same thing if Democrats began governing like Noam Chomsky. Democrats need to be VERY careful that they don't conduct a similar purge.


lol? 'People want Conservatives representing them', yes maybe the people inside the GOP conference rooms from Alabama to Idaho, but Conservativism has taken a huge hit. I love how you go on in the next sentence saying that despite trying to kick people with opposing viewpoints (like McCain and Graham, both conservatives), then saying we're a big tent. Apparently not.

And it looks like the 2010 elections are still more than a year away, and I still give fairly decent chances for the Dems; they may even have a net pickup in the Senate. And, I'd still wager than Obama has a better chance of being assassinated than losing re-election.


psaw, he was just a librul.

Realistically though, that description of conservativism really was conservativism in the 19th and early 20th centuries...

Slight problem with this: we haven't actually balanced Federal spending since 1956 (or is it '53?). The only reason it appears balanced on paper is that some of the debt gets shifted into Intragovernmental Holdings rather than being put right out in the open. That "some" is mostly made up of the Social Security surplus (which is converted to "revenue", IOUs created in the form of Treasuries, the debt shifted to "Intragovernmental Holdings" to balance the books on the whole shell game).

Contradiction much?

When I was in High school AP Gov't class I was terrified because I realized that if the GOP were to shed it's racism and embrase the Latinos as their primary voting block then they would in all likelyhood win the next several cycles.

then i realized that if the GOP were to become the party of immigrants I would probably vote for it.

No, I do not want Conservatives representing me because I'm not Conservative.

What is the "big government agenda"?

Yes because the GOP is so racist, some members are, not the party as a whole, do you even know why LBJ signed the ERA ammendment, or what party supported it and voted for it?

"people self-describe as conservatives more than they do as liberals" is not the same as "people want conservatives representing them". All the Gallup poll shows is that 1) the "liberal" label has been heavily stigmatized, and 2) people like to self-describe as "moderate". If we're talking about who people want representing them, we should look at how people vote, not how they describe themselves.

If we were taking this poll as evidence of how people wish to be represented in government, your policy of kicking out moderates becomes even more foolish. If the moderates combine with the liberals, not a single state in the union has a conservative majority.

I love Taft. He was one of my favorite presidents.

the Republican party of 1964 is not the Republican party of today, as can be seen by its shifting voter-base.

I only really know him from this song about him:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6MsGsNkFqI

i'm pretty sure this thread, was askinga bout nixon forward, while the ERA may have been right before nixon, i don't think things were that different, so I believe my comments were valid in this thread...

I like this one better:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pENWP8r1-7M...feature=related

Reagan was not a true Conservative, although I give him props for having a lower unemployment rate when he left office than when he entered.

I will admit that I barely know anything about G Bush Sr., but G W Bush did give more money to help with malaria in Africa than any other country.

I could probably find more stuff, but seeing as how I consider myself to be libertarian/constitutional, I won't put so much effort into defending the Republican party.

Not the GOP but there is a large block of anti-immigration types who are a demo for the GOP. Drop the anti-immigration rhetoric, embrace immigration, and I'd easily vote GOP.

it's kind of funny that he lists Olympia Snowe as one of the people he wants to vote out to replace with a conservative.

Let me say this without a shadow of a doubt: if Olympia Snowe was defeated in the primaries in Maine by a conservative Republican, the Democrats would win her senate seat.

Snowe is a Republican in Maine. Maine went for Obama by a seventeen point margin. Both of Maine's congressional districts have Democratic incombents. And yet, it has two Republican senators. How is this possible?

it's possible because Snowe and Collins are hugely popular in Maine. The Republican party isn't popular, but Snowe and Collins both are, as both of them do a great job for their constituents. Their moderate constituents. Replace them with generic "conservative" candidates, and you lose the seat.

Given how subconsciously racist large chunks of the Republican party are, I'd say they'd end up fracturing the base quite a bit.

That and...well...Americans don't seem to WANT immigrants.

which is in and of itself both ironic and entirely expected. The last man on the island doesn't want the next man on the island.