Washington Examiner: Michael Barone: Why Ronald Reagan Couldn't be Ronald Reagan Today

Source: The Washington Examiner-

Source:The New Democrat 

To put it simply the Republican Party has moved away from Ronald Reagan. When President Reagan was in office in the 1980s he was that unifying force that could keep a large and very politically diverse political party together because they all lived Reagan.

The real Conservatives the Barry Goldwater faction that still makes up the conservative libertarian wing of the party. The emerging Religious-Right, or as I call them the big government wing of the party. And the business Conservatives who are really not interested in social issues and only foreign policy as it relates to the economy. And of course the Neoconservatives defense hawks that were inline with the Religious-Right on social issues. But perhaps further to the right of them on foreign policy. President Reagan was able to keep all the different GOP factions together and not going off in directions and focused at beating Democrats.

That type of leader that Reagan was for the GOP have never been replaced. And they haven’t that one person that can keep the party together. So you are left with a Republican Party with all of these different tribes accusing each other of not being real Republicans and on many cases mad at each other. But the other issue that would be there for Reagan is that as much as Republicans like to call themselves Reagan Republicans, they really aren’t. He wasn’t inline with them on the social issues in many cases. He just spoke to those groups because he wanted their support. And he wasn’t as big a unilateralist defense hawk for today’s Neocons.

The closest Republicans to Ronald Reagan and his vision of conservatism or conservative libertarianism would be the Rand Paul conservative libertarian wing of the party. People who are viewed by the Religious-Right and Neoconservatives as not real Republicans and far enough to the right for them. And because of these things Ron Reagan would have a hell of a time running for president as a Republican today.
Source:Rebel Medi

The Federalist: Scott Lincicome: A Free Market Guide to Assessing Reform Conservative Policies

Source:The Federalist

Hum 'reform conservative', that almost sounds like an Oxymoron if you take the official definition of conservative seriously which I do. Because reform means to change and generally improve something whatever something is. A conservative is supposed to be someone who believes in the status-quo. That is keep as is. To put it simply and risk stating the obvious a conservative believes in conserving. Its the progressive who is supposed to believe in changing and moving forward, adapting with the times.

But having gotten past that and lets say reform minded Republicans are only throwing out terms like 'reform conservative' because they grasp the obvious of the current state of the Republican Party. Which is a party that simply doesn't appeal to enough Americans to be a governing party. A party that can run more than just the lower chamber of Congress the House of Representatives with a tight divided majority. But could also run a united Congress that includes the upper chamber the Senate and win back the White House as well.

And for the Republican Party to be able to achieve these goals they are going to have to appeal to more than just their business lobby, libertarian anti-government right and the religious-right. As well as Americans besides their Anglo-Saxon Protestant base. And however they label an agenda that can do that 'reform conservative' or whatever it is going to have to bring in non-traditional (going back forty-five years) Republicans for them to be a true national governing party again.

The Washington Times: Cigarettes & The Nanny State

Source: The Washington Times.

Source:The New Democrat

I'm against the nanny state as well because it implies that government or elitists in government know best how to manage individuals lives for them. That the individuals themselves including people they do not know very well. That individuals are basically stupid and too dumb to decide for themselves what to eat, drink and manage their own personal affairs. And we have a long history of nanny state politics going to the Great Depression with alcohol prohibition and perhaps even further than that.

But what separates me from some on the Right who claim to be against big government and the nanny state until they are in favor of it, but then say "this is not big government, but good responsible government looking after the welfare of everyone" is that I'm against big government and the nanny state, period. I do not say I'm against it except when I'm in favor of it. I don't defend Americans right to drink or smoke, eat junk food why I'm telling Americans who they can sleep with. Or what music they can listen to, or what TV and movies they can watch.

To be against the nanny state you have to be against the nanny state. And that night sound like an obvious statement, but there are people both on the Right when it comes to alcohol, tobacco and junk food to use as examples who claim to be against the nanny state and looking after our individual freedom while at the same time are trying to ban homosexuality, or pornography or other forms of entertainment they personally do not approve of for the good of our general welfare.

There are three options when it comes to the nanny state.

1. You are in favor of it whether you are on the Right or Left.

2. You are against it whether you are on the Right or Left.

3. You are selectively in favor of it and against it whether you are on the Right or Left. You like the nanny state over here while you are against it over there.

But don't try to convince people of your opposition to big government and the nanny state on one hand while you are embracing it on the other hand.
Source:The Young Turks

Commentary Magazine: Jonathan S. Tobin: In Defense of the Vice Presidency

That is really the main and perhaps only function of the Vice President. And whatever responsibilities is given by the President and how well the Vice President carries out those duties determines how well the function of being ready to be President is carried out. Which is critical for any presidential nominee to select someone who is not only qualified to be Vice President of the United States, but President of the United States as well. Just in case the Vice President has to step into the Presidency even in a short-term basis during the President’s term.

With a Vice President the American people know who they are getting if anything were to happen to the President. Because the Vice President is from the same party and in a lot of cases has similar political beliefs. And a good and active Vice President which is what we’ve had for the most part since Walter Mondale in the Carter Administration. And I would even add Dan Quayle and Dick Cheney to that list whatever you think of them personally and politically. Who both had major roles in their President’s administration and were ready to step into the Presidency if needed.

For me at least it is not a question if whether or not we should have a Vice President or not. But what exactly should be the Vice President’s duties besides representing the administration oversees and keeping a close eye on Congress to step in and be able to negotiate deals with them for the President. And because of the possibility that the Vice President may at some point become President before the President’s term is over you want the Vice President to have a major role in the administration.

For me that means having the Vice President as the 1st Officer of the Administration or Executive Branch. In on all and able to weigh in on all decisions that the President makes and having all of the access to information and reports that the President gets. And being in on all of the major presidential meetings. Being a member of all the key presidential councils so the Vice President has the intelligence, knowledge, and experience needed if and where they become President at some point during the President’s term.

Long are the days where the Vice President for the most part is a ceremonial role and just attending funerals and other functions outside of the Executive Branch. And presiding over the U.S. Senate even when a tie vote doesn’t occur as President of the U.S. Senate. Which is a good thing because for the Vice President to be useful to the country that person needs to know what is going on and able to help the President govern the country.

The Federalist: David Corbin & Matt Parks: Who Killed Federalism?

(via Who Killed Federalism?) 

Federalism isn’t really dead at all even though there is a Far-Left faction in the Democratic Party and outside of the DP that would probably like to get rid of federalism all together and create a social democracy with unitarian form of government. And a faction in the Republican Party that would like to eliminate federalism as it relates to social issues like homosexuality and marijuana to use as examples. 

America is still a federal republic in the form of a liberal democracy with fifty states. As well as all of the localities with big cities and big counties and smaller communities inside of these counties and states. Having a lot it not most of the responsibility as it relates to domestic policy. With the Federal Government serving as  supporter for the states, locals and people. And providing national standards on things that we should be doing as an entire country. Like making sure that special education is available to everyone that needs it. And that social insurances are there for the less-fortunate in society. Not be there to run these services and in a lot of cases the Feds do not. But there really for the most part to see that everyone who’s eligible for them receives them. And to provide the needed financing for them. 

As much as today’s so-called Progressives like to point to Europe especially as Scandinavia as the economic and governing model for how America should function because of our unique setup with the fifty states and unique diversity in a whole range of areas still function best when decision-making is made closest to the people it is supposed to serve. The only countries that have are similar to our size or bigger that have centralized power with the central government have been authoritarian states for the most part. Russia and China come to mind and that is not the direction where we want to go. 

A country with all of the diversity that we have in so many areas that has three-hundred and ten-million people that lays between two large oceans with fifty states in it functions best when we take advantage of all of our resources especially our human capital. And not centralize so much power with just one authority.

The Federalist: Robert Kraniski: What the Left Gets Wrong About the Constitution

 

(via What the Left Gets Wrong About Constitutionalism) 

"What the Left Gets Wrong About Constitutionalism". Perhaps not the best title for this post because it implies that the Left meaning the whole Left doesn’t understand the U.S. Constitution, or doesn’t understand perhaps aspects of it. Even though it was actually Liberals who wrote the Constitution and as a Liberal myself the U.S. Constitution is a big reason why I’m a Liberal. Maybe the title of this piece should be what "parts of the Left get wrong about the U.S. Constitution". Or what today’s so-called Progressives who are actually Social Democrats, or what I like to call Eurocrats get wrong about the U.S. Constitution. 

But being that is it may to talk about the factions on the Left who do not like aspects of today’s Constitution, or agree with it which is where I agree with classical Conservatives and Libertarians on I’m going to focus on people who are called Progressives today but are really what is common in Europe and called Social Democrats. People who believe in social democracy as opposed to liberal democracy and constitutional federalism. Which is how America is governed to day with a lot of power and responsibility put on individuals over their own lives. And with the states and locals in a lot of cases playing the supportive role when it comes to people who can’t take care of themselves. As opposed to social democracy or unitarian government where a lot of power in the country is centralized with the federal or central government. Not just to support people who can’t fully support themselves. But to take care of and provide a lot of if not most of the basic services that people need to live well. 

Its social democracy and unitarian government that today’s so-called Progressives want to bring to America. And almost if not do away with the Constitution then to completely rewrite it only leaving in what they like about it. But where the Federal Government would be a hell of a lot bigger when it comes to supporting all Americans regardless of income level. And where there would be a lot less power for the private sector, states and locals, as well as individuals over their own lives. 

The problem that Social Democrats as I call them have when it comes to establishing a Scandinavian or Anglo style of government in America is the U.S. Constitution itself. Because it limits what government can do when it comes to the economy and into Americans lives for good or bad. And their idea of governmental power is again social democracy. That if a majority of the people want government to do something for them. Or outlaw or limit what government can do for themselves. That they believe majority rule is all that Congress and the President need to pass whatever the so-called “will of the people”. America is simply not governed that way for the most part. We have a Constitution that lays out what government can do. And it takes a huge consensus to reverse that. 

So what Social Democrats get wrong about the U.S. Constitution is their own governing philosophy. They believe if the people want government to do something than all they need is for Congress and the President to make that happen. They want majority rule all the time when it comes to government. And the American form of government is simply not set up that way. 

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell: 'Urges Obama Administration to Reject Anti First Amendment Rule'

Source:Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell- talking about the Internal Revenue Service in the Obama Administration.

"U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell made the following remarks on the Senate floor calling on the Obama Administration to reject a proposed IRS rule that would suppress American free speech." 

From Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell