Posted 8 months, 12 days ago in 
Loading ...
It’s said that Bill Clinton and Warren G. Harding are comparable presidents. That’s hard to believe. As pointed out, they were both good-looking, philandering former governors with a laise fair attitude about their administrations.
The consequence of these weakended presidencies is that their parties are apt to be taken over by conservative thought. Ever since World War I, conservative thinking has hijacked and run the Republican Party. Since Bill Clinton survived as president, hea can be the present-day conservative facilitator for the Democrats.
So, if Hillary wins the nominaion, the race for presidency will be “Goldwater Girl versus Godlwater Boy. (John McCain won former Sen. Barry Goldwater’s seat when Goldwater retired, and Hillary campaigned for Goldwater in 1964.) Conservatives, anyone?
What’s the big deal if conservatives run both parties? Well, conseratives limit their information base and are closed to ideas without a kind of pedigree. Outside input is often framed by the letter of the law, not the spirit of the law.
The bottom line is, we need to conserv e our heritage, but not at the expense of “progress.” Progreess is an ever-increasing challenge tthat our maker has given usto incorporate the most appropriate resources for the assent of the human race. In other wrods: Preserve nott for its own sak; make the most with what there is.
All this infirghting narrows and blunts real opportunities to be be taken. Hillary’s strategy is less than noble and it also degrades the two-party system.
FRED STEWART
Grand Junction
10 Responses to “Conservatives taking control of both parties”
Posted May 1st, 2008 at 4:48 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
What the heck are you smoking? Hillary a conservative? That’s nuts!
And McCain? He is about as liberal as the Republican party has today. The only reason McCain has a chance is exactly because he is moderate enough to attract the uncommited.
This is laughable.
Posted May 1st, 2008 at 4:52 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I must confess that I enjoyed Mr. Stewart’s letter. It displays the thoughts of one who considers things with the gravity they deserve. Despite that, I find myself rather confused by his use of the word “conservative”, as I am quite frequently when encountering it, as I am by many other political terms in the context in which they are used. There is always something present that is left out, and almost always something present that should not be there.
What is almost always left out is the answer that I keep asking over and over. If one is to call oneself a “conservative”, does that not imply that one is attempting to conserve something? Very well, what is that, and why should we be attempting to “conserve” it. Yes, I read and hear the words “freedom”, “liberty”, and in the case of Mr. Stewart, “heritage.” Those are all good and noble sounding terms but, what “exactly” do those terms mean? Mr. Stewart points that out, and I quote “Preserve nott for its own sak; make the most of what there is”. In other words, we should not hold onto the past in its entirety but select what is “good” from the past and preserve that. Prior to conserving we should “separate the wheat from the chaff” so to speak.
Now that we have dealt with what is not there but should be, let us attempt to move forward to what is almost always there, but should not be. That is the value judgment attached to terms or, what may be properly called “emotionally based definitions” i.e. designer definitions. “A” is bad and “B” is good. “C” is virtuous while “D” is evil. Then when one asks, what reply do we most often get? “That’s the way it is.” The real fact is that when discussing any issue, one must approach terms and words with their proper definitions, and without emotional attachments. To do otherwise constitutes the very essence of “corruption of language.” As almost every great thinker of the past has warned us, and here I paraphrase, “Corruption of language is a sure sign of a society’s decline.” For those who like to refer to the bible, that is the lesson in the story about the Tower of Babble.
Posted May 2nd, 2008 at 8:26 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Anyone remember when “Conservative” and “Liberal” did not necessarily mean “Republican” and “Democrat”, respectively? When the schools of thought were separate from the political parties? The system is so polarized now, one person can’t declare themselves a Liberal or Conservative without blindly swearing allegiance to one party or the other. In the eyes of the party bosses, D = L, and R = C, or you’re just not “a good party member”.
Boiling down our government into two parties (with the rest acting only as spoilers in close races) has prevented any real debate on issues, or real progress. But as long as our leaders keep dutifully blaming each other and filling the airwaves with partisan rhetoric, few people will notice that nothing ever really gets done.
Posted May 2nd, 2008 at 8:49 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
I think that a significant change occurred among Democrats as a result of Viet Nam and Watergate. After that, we saw a significant veer to the left by a large fraction of the Democratic party. What was considered liberal in the days of JFK and before, is now more moderate. In the Republican party we saw a veer to the right by a large fraction of the party in reaction to the more extreme left faction of the Democratic party as the issue of religion came more into play. The extreme factions in each party also seem to be the most motivated and they tend to carry the most influence in the presidential primaries. McCain, who was the annointed fron runnner when the primary season began, almost dropped out of the race as the extreme right tried to push him out of the way. Hilary, the annointed front runner when the primaryu season began, is now almost out of it as the more liberal candidate took the lead.
But, when election day rolls around, it will be the folks in the center, those who are neither liberal nor conservative, who will decide the election.
Posted May 2nd, 2008 at 8:54 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Well said, Curmudgeon,
I, for one, am just about fed up with zealots of every stripe. I am still, however, a Democrat because there is still hope for the party to actually regain its’ integrity and honor. The Republicans; not so much.
I believe it is the responsibility of elected officials to represent and consider all their constituents, not just the ones that voted for them. I know that many disagree with me, but I believe that depolarization of our government is essential.
Posted May 2nd, 2008 at 9:00 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Actually, dc; I think there’s hope for both sides. The fact that so many Republicans dislike John McCain for not being “conservative” enough is a step in the right direction. Think about it; a short time ago, Mitt Romney was the golden child…..
There’s hope.
Posted May 2nd, 2008 at 9:08 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
And things will improve further when Democrats finally reach the conclusion they they too need a more moderate candidate in order to win the White House.
Posted May 2nd, 2008 at 9:12 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
No argument, there, bullish. In my opinion, most people (Democrat or Republican) are much more moderate than their parties.
Posted May 2nd, 2008 at 9:22 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
The problems with ALL the current crop of wannabes is their honesty level.
From the local wannabes to the pretenders to the Presidency, nearly every one is hiding something from the electors.
Both parties are the same. On each side, nationwide, there may be a few ’slightly more honest’ than their opponent, but not very many.
The sooner people stop sending money to the criminal elements at the national level, the sooner we can gain some kind of control.
Posted May 2nd, 2008 at 9:47 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis, you are right.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.