Just like they won in 2012!
From my observations over my lifetime... Republicans only win when Democrats
have gotten us into such huge government spending that America will elect
ANYBODY who promises to get us out.Problem is... Republicans (after
all their promises) rarely do much better than Democrats. So we go back to
Democrats.===With the exception of George H. W Bush
after Ronald Reagan, America has not elected the same party back to back in my
lifetime. The last time it happened (besides Bush and Reagan) was Trueman and
Roosevelt. 1940s.We've gone back and forth electing a
Republican and then a Democrat since the 1940s.Maybe it's time
for somebody who's neither...===Democrats who bet
that a Republican will never be elected President again are probably wrong.
That assumption ignores our history and assumes that our trend will change 100%
of the time. I think there's a pretty slim chance of that.But
Lee is right... Republicans need to promote their plan (and it has to be
different than the Democrat's plan) They must stop bashing
Obama. Just as Democrats eventually learned they couldn't win just bashing
Bush.You have to have a plan... not an anti-plan...
I agree, conservatives have come up with some good ideas, like Richard Nixon
establishing the EPA, and the ultra conservative Heritage Foundation developing
the basic principles of Obamacare!
This is not the GOP of Reagan. Compared to today's Tea partiers, he's
a moderate. In fact, he would be booed off the stage at any of today's GOP
liberal larry,I don't think Republicans are going to win just by
promising to do the same or similar things Democrats promise (like the EPA and
Obamacare even if they proposed those originally).I think they have
to propose and even PROMISE to cut spending (Something we know Americans will
never believe Democrats will do). And then they need to do it.Problem is... if they do it... it will be painful for some people who's
program gets cut. So they can't expect to get RE-elected. I think
that's why they always chicken-out.And that's where the
cycle starts over... Democrat in, big spending, people get fed up, elect
Republican, they chicken-out or actually make cuts and tick people off... back
to Democrats... repeat, repeat, repeat...
Reagan ran up the national debt.
Blue,I disagree. I think you judge people to harshly (Republican people).
I think Reagan would be asked and he would be a welcome speaker at any
Republican Convention.That doesn't mean everybody there would
agree with him on everything (but that's OK I think).For
instance... they may point out that the amnesty part of his immigration reform
bill didn't work. And he may get some grief for the Iran Contra thingy.
But I don't think they would boo him off the stage (in any State...
especially in Utah).
mcclark,I'm not sure if you're aware of this... but the Congress
controls the budget (not the President). And we had a Democrat Congress when
Reagan was President. I think they deserve at least SOME of the blame for the
budgets they passed.If you will remember... Reagan asked for a
certain amount of cuts, and promised to VETO the budget if he didn't get at
least 1/2 of those cuts. The Democrats tried him... 3 times... and he
veto'd it... 3 times. I remember these instances (when the Government was
shutdown 3 times during the Reagan Administration) because my job was to write
the software to calculate Medicaid/Medicare Reimbursements for hospitals, and
the algorithm would change each time they passed an interim budget to get us
down the road a few months... and then we were right back in the stalemate where
we started (kinda like the shenanigans Republicans pulled recently with
President Obama).But you can't 100% blame Reagan for the
budgets the Democrat Congress passed.He DID ask for more cuts...
they just refused to give them. Not even 1/2 of what he requested!
Excellent points Mr. Lee...I totally agree. Now if they could be not just words,
but channeled into some kind of appropriate action, our country could be on a
little better track.
"It’s time for the Republican Party to stop talking about Ronald
Reagan and start acting like him." Does this mean raising taxes on the
wealthy and corporations back to the levels they were during the reagon years?
Do that and you may have my attention.
2 bits,How about if we restored Reagan-level tax rates? Can we get
a contemporary Republican to re-introduce Reagan's Tax Equity and Fiscal
Responsibility Act of 1982?Or how about this from Mike Huckabee in
2011: "Ronald Reagan would have a very difficult, if not impossible, time
being nominated in this atmosphere of the Republican Party."See
what I mean?
"And we see it at the top, where political and corporate elites rig the
system to benefit themselves at the expense of small businesses and working
families." Well, at least Senator Lee sees this, but he does not see
clearly. The collapse of 2008 was produced by the banking business'
marketing of bogus paper, feeding a bubble which of necessity popped. To save
American capitalism the Bush and Obama administrations saved the guys at the
very top, rescued the big banks, insurance companies, and automobile
manufacturers. Now, these beneficiaries were supposed to support the down-line
economy (that was the deal), but they did not oblige. In our system they
didn't have to. So the economy continues to founder and middle and lower
classes die slow deaths.The 1% of 1% didn't "rig" the
system. The system did its thing after being rescued by government, which
government had to do to save the system. I don't think a guy with Senator
Lee's ideology can ever get this. But we desperately need him to "get
it."As Marx would say, "it's not the people [who are
the cause], it's the system."
Yeah, right. These same old ideas have got us where we are today.
It's interesting how Reagan, one of the worst President's in history
is so often held up as the epitome of Conservatism.Reagan had
Alzheimer's, a horrible degenerative brain disease. When Reagan claimed he
had no knowledge at all of the Iran-Contra affair, he wasn't lying, he
really did not remember. Reagan did not remember because his brain was damaged
by Alzheimer's disease, and that of course was not his fault.This brain-damaged President proved to be extremely pliable and the perfect
puppet for Right Wing power brokers, because he was above all an actor, and he
could deliver wonderful performances given the right script.When you
think about it, is it really that surprising to find that the only brain-damaged
President in history is regarded as the paragon of Conservative virtues?
"Iran-Contra thingy"? That thingy was the most immoral action by a US
President (or presidential candidate) ever.
2 bits -"With the exception of George H. W Bush after Ronald
Reagan, America has not elected the same party back to back in my lifetime. The
last time it happened (besides Bush and Reagan) was Trueman and Roosevelt.
1940s."No that’s not the last time it happened. LBJ was
elected after JFK. And what's this about Democratic Presidents
and "huge" government spending?Reagan TRIPLED the national
debt. And GW more than DOUBLED it again. And neither President had any
legitimate reason for doing so.That's pretty huge.
Actually the reason Republicans will win is because the Democrats have proved
terrible at governing. Ideas don't have much to do with it especially in a
mid-term election that proves nothing because no one is at the top of the
ticket.Mike Lee's Ideas were the Ideas that Mitt Romney ran on
in 2012. Their platforms were almost identical and Romney lost partly because
of that and partly because republican infighting took money away from the summer
campaign. The tea party will never have a mandate if they continue
to kick people out of their ever shrinking clique.
Republicans need to tell us what exactly what they will do differently from what
George Bush Jr. did. They need to tell us which of his policies they will repeal
and which of his ideas they will renounce. Up till now all I hear is a repeat of
George W, and that was a disaster.
it is rather comical to read the tit for tat drivel between the democratic and
Republican supporters! I mean how obvious can it possibly be for anyone that
can with a rudimentary education that both of these parties are absolutely about
retaining power rather than actually solving problems! What is it that drives
this ignorance and distortion of reality? It isn't about third party or
any other party. it is about becoming an American! Americans do not ask the
government to solve problems that real Americans can solve themselves! Grow up
people! Does it make you feel like you are a part of something by supporting
another democratic or republican charade? Don't! Quit trying to
"fix" things! let people figure it out and get the heck out of their
way! Helicopter parents aren't even close to the helicopter supporters of
ideas by politicians that only make things worse!
A Tea-Partier singing the praises of Reagan?Who, signed
abortion legislation, raised the debt 17 times, banned hand guns and
assault weapons, introduce universal healthcare in the ER, regardless of
insurance or ability to pay, granted amnesty to illegal immigrants, increased spending and decreased taxes, and traded weapons to IRAN
for hostages.Reagan would branded a RINO, and boo'd by
these sorts.Tell me, If ANY GOP candidate were to run as a
true Reaganite, He'd never make it past the Tea-Party lead
primaries...[But, I can almost guarantee he'd win the National
General Elections by a landslide not seen by the GOP's win with
Reagan's 1984 49 out of 50 states.But keep going Tea-Partiers,
you are your parties own worst enemy, and the Democrats best friend.If
I'd known better, I'd think the Democrats were funding your caucus AND
sponsoring Limbaugh, Beck and Hannity themselves.]
Hey the Hammer - How can you justify your claim that the "Democrats are
terrible at governing?"That's nonsense.Clinton
left GW Bush a prosperous nation with a recent history of balanced budgets, a
nation at peace with strong allies, and a good economy.And GW and
his Republican gang DESTROYED it all.That's Republican
governance for you.
Reagan ran as a Conservative but governed and ruled as a Moderate. Unlike Lee,
he built bridges with the opposition and regularly crossed the aisle to
compromise. That's why Reagan was popular - not because he rigidly adhered
to the ideals of just one party.
I love how people here just cherry pick facts about Reagan for there own
ideological support. Lets see if we can set the record straight on some of
them.1. Reagan -Raised taxes-Democrats like to pull this one out but
neglect to tell how the initial GDP growth that got us out of Jimmy Carters
disaster was because he cut the tax rates and loosened the regulations choke
holds on our industry. The tax raises principally were in the 2nd term of office
when his spending was in defence to make the USSR collapse and bring down the
berlin wall (Something the democrats pathetically tried to give gorbachev the
credit for) Another dirty secret was that the democrats were supposed to pass
some of the pollicies he had been pushing for but Democrats lied and took the
tax raises w/out putting the policies through. Same thing happened with Amnesty.
The deal was that Reagan would leagalize the illegal aliens in our country but
congress was supposed to secure the border at the same time. Again they lied. If
anything this reinforces the need for conservative solutions and reject
democrat/marxist faithlessness(the ends justify the means huh?)
Physician, heal thyself.
Yeah, Mr. Lee, we've heard all this before.When you guys gonna
stop talking and start seeking real solutions?
Democrats' Republicans, answers? All of you must be kidding. Right?
Didn't think so, and now we know why we have problems.
By the standards of today, Reagan was a moderate. He could actually talk and
negotiate with democrats in a reasonable manner. If Reagan was a Utahn, he
wouldn't make it on the ballot because the far right fringe controls
(controlled, he he) accesss to the ballot. We need to govern with sound
principles but we also need to be practical. There is no need to just be an
obstructionist (Mike Lee) to appointees and judges that have been vetted by
other Republicans as good, but you want to obstruct out of spite. Govern out of
principal not out of spite or political games. You can make a point, but
don't shut down the government and hurt millions of people for a losing
fight that damaged the Republican brand (I noticed you didn't do it this
past opportunity, and its a good thing because Republicans would of lost big in
Nov. if they tried that again).
The minute Mike Lee and his "new conservative" partners start talking
they'll start tanking. Mike's future in 2016 looks pretty bleak based
upon his senate record, defaulting personal loans, and possibly the campaign
accusations that were exposed in the Swallow investigation.
Ideas like having campaign contributors buy your house that you can't make
mortgage payments on?I don't think Mike Lee's ideas are
going to win anything other than a quick trip to the slammer. He and Swallow
deserve to go to jail for the laws they've broken. The constitutional
expert needs to abide by the law just like the rest of us.
to 2 bits"Maybe it's time for somebody who's
neither..."I'm ahead of the curve I voted for Gary Johnson.
re: Blue & TolstoyRR would be considered a RINO by
today's GOP. The same GOP who BTW who marginalized Ron Paul & totally
ignored G Johnson.
Ideas? What ideas? If you say you're not hiding them, let's see them!
It's one thing to trumpet that you have ideas, it's another to put
them out there so we can discuss them. So far the only idea I've heard from
Mike Lee is "Obama baaaad, Obama baaad. . . "
Garbo: I find it ironic that given the record of our current president, which
many like yourself, rather than talking about his accomplishments want to point
the finger of blame on someone else for the failures, Reagan stood by his
record! Whether you liked it or not, he stood by his record. The only thing we
here from democrats is the reason why something isn't working. don't
you find that striking? In fact, it is just the opposite now! Even Democrats
are running away from his signature accomplishment, only, again, to point the
finger of blame on the Republicans for something that Obama should be shouting
from the roof tops as his legacy! As for me, both parties have a legacy of
failure that even the most ignorant would be compelled to admit without wonder
as an utter failure of leadership! No one in his right mind, in any country in
the world, would admit that the United States is a model of governance that has
produced citizenship one would attribute to the laws passed by its governing
chambers! instead, it has been a mockery!
His idea is to lose Billions by shutting down the government and this will work
next time? We need a reality based Senate representative and Lee should resign
over tea party tantrum.
It is disingenuous to compare today's conservative movement to the Reagan
conservative movement. This is an uncivilized, mean-spirited,take no prisoners
movement. The Reagan revolution was pragmatic and civilized.There is
no way Reagan would be accepted by today's GOP. Sad...
Let's just set the record straight! I believe that government does not
have any solutions and not only do the democrats have no answers, but it is
their answers that have kept millions in poverty, ruined the free enterprise
system, which is the backbone of this country, and destroyed initiative by
placing millions on the government plantation system. I am not a Republican by
a Long ways, nor do I ascribe to both parties desire for war! I am a part of
the new America that will destroy the welfare state, make the Constitution
something that democrats and republicans don't support because they like
the power that comes along with slavery! I am not an extremist, unless an
extremist is someone who believes in God, family, and country, all of which the
Democratic Party and the Republican Party have forgotten! I am not alone, as
represented by 40 percent of the populous that doesn't align itself with
Republican or Democrat! republicans and Democrats are lazy people who have
forgotten the values of honesty, integrity, and virtue, as evidenced by the
myriad of promises that were just lies to promote party loyalty ! I am the
future, the new American!
Two significant problems with this bipolar editorial: first, we can trace
today's rampant inequality to Reaganomics, which cut taxes on the wealthy
and encouraged a supply-side greedfest that George H.W. Bush labeled "voodoo
economics," and second, the policies Mike Lee suggests will solve our
inequality are the same ones that gave us the inequality in the first place.Mike, welfare does not cause inequality; inequality necessitates
welfare. If you stop getting the cart before the horse, you might begin solving
this devastating problem. Go ahead, take welfare away from some people. They
won't get jobs unless those jobs exist in the first place. And those jobs
don't exist because demand is too low. Demand is too low because the wealth
is going to the top, where little of it is spent on consumable goods and
services.You need to watch the documentary "Inequality for
All" and pay special attention to business tycoon Nick Hanauer, who
understands very well the problems with our economy and doesn't consider
himself a "job creator." He insists that consumer demand is the job
creator and giving him more money will not create a single job.
Seriously? I admit I took the bait and read all the way to the end of the
article looking for Sen. Lee's ideas...nothing. Are these ideas state
secrets? I have an idea...and it's a good idea...and
you're really going to like it...and it's going to lead the party to
victory...but I'm not going to tell you what it is. But it's going to
help the poor, and the middle class and protect us from evil rich people and
corporations...well maybe that's more than one idea...but I'm still
not going to tell you what it is.The Senator has no problem writing
at length to invoke the halo of a past politician, but can't share anything
about the ideas he claims to have. Almost as troubling is that those that
comment spend all their breath debating whether the past politician is worthy of
the praise given to him by Sen. Lee.Try again Senator. But put the
idea up front next time, since as you can imagine, I won't make the mistake
of reading all the way to the end again looking for it.
I like Mike Lee but so far there is no new Republican Party; like the Democrats
they are still too self-seeking, except for some of the so-called Tea Party
congressmen.With the likes of Behner and McConnell and Hatch and the
many other politicians of both parties are deaf to the people we need a thorough
electoral purge, and a Third Party that has as its platform the things that a
majority of the nation want but can get from neither the democrats or
republicans. We need a balanced budget amendment, an end to
constant foreign wars, an enforcement of immigration laws, an end to special
perks for senators and congressmen and presidents, an end to government
snooping, cheaper energy prices, jobs for Americans (legal residents and
citizens), more personal freedom, a government that listens to the people.The Republi- crats don't deliver. I don't see how we can
avoid a Third Party that is truly popular and I hope they draft Mike Lee. He is
one of the few good ones.
Anti-establishment conservatives indicates how radical this extreme segment has
become. Last anti-establishment group was the hippies of the late sixties.
Democrat. Republican. From here there is little difference between the two -
like the days when "Ford" and "Mercury" were the same product
with some difference in surface packaging. Both sides are funded by, and pass
legislation to benefit, the 1% with little regard for the voters they are
supposed to represent. There are many people in Washington I will
vote against, few I will actually vote for and support in any way.
To "Blue" you are partially right. The reason why Reagan would not be
accepted by todays Republican party is because the Republican party has moved so
far left that he would be considered an extremist. The Tea Party is more in
line with Reagan, than people like McCain or Lindsey Graham.To those
of you who are complaining about the debt increases under Reagan, you should
look to see what he has to say about them. When asked about some of his
regrets, Reagan said "The Democrats reneged on their pledge [to cut
spending] and we never got those cuts."It seems that the
Democrats lied to Reagan, and he was foolish enough to trust them. Are
today's Democrats any better?
To "GaryO" how did Clinton leave us in a good position economically?
When Clinton left office we were in a recession. See "Bush inherited
Clinton's recession" at CNN and "Last U.S. Recession Began Under
Clinton, Economy Panel May Say" at Bloomberg. How is a recession a good
thing?To "one vote" now those hippies from the 1960's
are the ones in charge. So why was it good for them, but bad for Conservatives
to do the same thing?
Let's take back America and the values our country stands for (well used
to stand for): self-reliance, family, individual responsibility, military
might, integrity of a person's word being as good as his bond (in other
words honesty---"you can keep your insurance"???) The Tea Party and GOP
have got to get it together.........
No Redshirt, we were NOT in a recession when Clinton left the White House. GW
Bush ushered two recessions in on his watch. The first one (March 2001 -
November 2001) was mild. The second was absolutely horrible . . . but not
surprising in hindsight. After all this is Republican "leadership"
we're talking about here.You need to read something other than
Right Wing propaganda. Look it up. There are plenty of valid sources
to choose from. CNBC and Investopedia both have lists on the net.I
can see why "Conservatives" so often point toward non-facts as
"proof" of their contentions.The facts rarely support their
point of view.
To "GaryO" I hate to break it to you, but even CNBC and Investopedia
agree that there was a recession in 2000, which means that Bush inherited a
recession.Read the article "Why This Recession Seems Worse Than
'70s and '80s" at CNBC which lists out most of the recessions
since the 1970's. They state that "During the 1990-1991 recession, the
deepest quarterly GDP decline was 3.0 percent; in the 2000-2001 one it was 1.4
percent." so we had a recession in 1990, and again in 2000. Clinton was
President at that time.Investopedia lists the Dot Com bubble
bursting under Clinton. See "Market Crashes: The Dotcom Crash" with the
dot com bubble bursting, that lead to another recession.Where are
your facts? Even your sources don't agree with you.