• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

CPAC chair: Christie didn't 'deserve' an invite this year

Re: CPAC head: Christie "doesn't deserve" to be a Republican

Fiddytree said:
The label would have been anachronistic to some small extent, but then a wholesale rejection would preclude discussions of Cato the Elder.
Click to expand...

In the world of 1828 a nation that determined political legitimacy by democratic ballot could not, by definition, include any conservatives. :roll:
 
Re: CPAC head: Christie "doesn't deserve" to be a Republican

CanadaJohn said:
You guys are all hard core and far more knowledgable on the subject than I'll ever be so I'll keep quiet. My only original point was that I'll bet there are tens of millions of people out there who would gladly support a party that believed in small, efficient government that valued and protected taxpayer dollars and at the same time had no interest in getting involved in social engineering and the private lives of the citizenry.
Click to expand...

You are right on the money.
 
Re: CPAC head: Christie "doesn't deserve" to be a Republican

Jack Hays said:
In the world of 1828 a nation that determined political legitimacy by democratic ballot could not, by definition, include any conservatives. :roll:
Click to expand...

You're going over the top by reducing the possibility for changes, modification to the definition.
 
Re: CPAC head: Christie "doesn't deserve" to be a Republican

I like Christie, he focused on what was important during crisis, the people that voted for him.
 
Re: CPAC head: Christie "doesn't deserve" to be a Republican

Einzige said:
A book I'd suggest you read:

The Revolution of American Conservatism: The Federalist Party in the Era of Jeffersonian Democracy by David Hackett Fischer - Reviews, Discussion, Bookclubs, Lists
Click to expand...

From a contemporary (1965!) review of the book:

Searching for popular issues, these latter-day Federalists adopted the very slogans their predecessors had denounced as Jacobinical: majority rule, minority rights, rotation in office, and the primacy of agriculture. Federalists had become, not only republicans, as Jefferson recognized, but even democrats. In this obscure period and through this obscure party, Fischer declares, a fundamental change had occurred.

No conservatives in 1828. QED:roll:
 
Re: CPAC head: Christie "doesn't deserve" to be a Republican

Jack Hays said:
From a contemporary (1965!) review of the book:

Searching for popular issues, these latter-day Federalists adopted the very slogans their predecessors had denounced as Jacobinical: majority rule, minority rights, rotation in office, and the primacy of agriculture. Federalists had become, not only republicans, as Jefferson recognized, but even democrats. In this obscure period and through this obscure party, Fischer declares, a fundamental change had occurred.

No conservatives in 1828. QED:roll:
Click to expand...

You seem to have missed this part of the review:

Federalists had become, not only republicans, as Jefferson recognized, but even democrats.
Click to expand...

'Becoming' implies a starting state the opposite of which is the end result.
 
Re: CPAC head: Christie "doesn't deserve" to be a Republican

Fiddytree said:
You're going over the top by reducing the possibility for changes, modification to the definition.
Click to expand...

To quote the best line from the film Midway, "We like to call it analysis, Captain.":cool:
 
Re: CPAC head: Christie "doesn't deserve" to be a Republican

Rocketman said:
I like Christie, he focused on what was important during crisis, the people that voted for him.
Click to expand...

I don't want him as president at all,

but I do respect him doing what was necessary

after the hurricane.:twocents:
 
Re: CPAC head: Christie "doesn't deserve" to be a Republican

Einzige said:
You seem to have missed this part of the review:



'Becoming' implies a starting state the opposite of which is the end result.
Click to expand...

Again from the review: "Fischer concentrates upon the period from 1800 to 1816, . . . "

We're discussing 1828. No conservatives by then. QED:roll:
 
Re: CPAC head: Christie "doesn't deserve" to be a Republican

joko104 said:
And then turned around and attacked 100% of Republican in Congress. ALL Republicans as a collective.
Click to expand...

When did he do this?


joko104 said:
What Christie did to Romney, after being who agreed to actually formally introduce and nominate Romney, was as lowlife backstabbing sleezy as it gets. Christie cares about only one person on earth - himself - and his ethics are singularly to that goal.

No one Republican can trust backstabbing opportunistic and knee-jerk reaction Christie. He's the ultimate loose cannon on the deck.
Click to expand...

Why, because he worked with the President in the aftermath of Sandy and put the interests of his state above partisan politics?
 
Re: CPAC head: Christie "doesn't deserve" to be a Republican

penn1954 said:
I don't want him as president at all,

but I do respect him doing what was necessary

after the hurricane.:twocents:
Click to expand...

I would have taken him over Romney, Republicans shot themselves in the foot with that nomination
 
Re: CPAC head: Christie "doesn't deserve" to be a Republican

Jack Hays said:
Again from the review: "Fischer concentrates upon the period from 1800 to 1816, . . . "

We're discussing 1828. No conservatives by then. QED:roll:
Click to expand...

I've never seen someone more pedantic in an attempt to appear intellectual.

Tell me: do you think every single Federalist in the nation had embraced the Democracy by 1828? You don't think there were any stalwarts hiding out in the rural hinterlands of Vermont, say? Or the forests of Maine?
 
Re: CPAC head: Christie "doesn't deserve" to be a Republican

Rocketman said:
I would have taken him over Romney, Republicans shot themselves in the foot with that nomination
Click to expand...

A valid point.

Romney IMO was the worst choice since he was

liberal light!!
 
Re: CPAC head: Christie "doesn't deserve" to be a Republican

Jack Hays said:
To quote the best line from the film Midway, "We like to call it analysis, Captain.":cool:
Click to expand...

You may call that analysis, but I call it sloppy.
 
Re: CPAC head: Christie "doesn't deserve" to be a Republican

Einzige said:
I've never seen someone more pedantic in an attempt to appear intellectual.

Tell me: do you think every single Federalist in the nation had embraced the Democracy by 1828? You don't think there were any stalwarts hiding out in the rural hinterlands of Vermont, say? Or the forests of Maine?
Click to expand...

Pedantry is the accusation leveled at the erudite by the unschooled. There were, no doubt, hidden "stalwarts" (to use your term), just as there are "stalwarts" today who claim the income tax is unconstitutional. In neither case, then or now, were/are they of any political consequence. :boom
 
Re: CPAC head: Christie "doesn't deserve" to be a Republican

Einzige said:
I've never seen someone more pedantic in an attempt to appear intellectual.

Tell me: do you think every single Federalist in the nation had embraced the Democracy by 1828? You don't think there were any stalwarts hiding out in the rural hinterlands of Vermont, say? Or the forests of Maine?
Click to expand...

The Era of Good Feelings was a unique period, but when we embrace models we do the disservice of ignoring complexities regarding the changing viewpoints of political viewpoints. If there were no conservatives in 1828, we have to come to terms with the John Quincy Adams and the Whig Party somehow.
 
Re: CPAC head: Christie "doesn't deserve" to be a Republican

Jack Hays said:
Pedantry is the accusation leveled at the erudite by the unschooled. There were, no doubt, hidden "stalwarts" (to use your term), just as there are "stalwarts" today who claim the income tax is unconstitutional. In neither case, then or now, were/are they of any political consequence. :boom
Click to expand...

So you think that you had to have opposed elective democracy in its entirety in order to count as a 'conservative' in 1828? Praytell, when do you think this changed? Surely no conservative completely opposes the ballot today. Even those lunatics who want to turn back over to the state legislatures elections to the Senate do not oppose electing the state legislators themselves.
 
Re: CPAC head: Christie "doesn't deserve" to be a Republican

Jack Hays said:
If you don't have the tools, don't play.:cool:
Click to expand...

I have plenty of tools. I should be employing them right now instead of being on this forum. Perhaps you served as a good reminder to go back to researching conservative nuclear strategists of the Cold War.
 
Re: CPAC head: Christie "doesn't deserve" to be a Republican

This thread clearly illustrates the essential truism that "The only thing angrier than a Liberal that has just lost an election is a Liberal that has just won an election."
 
Re: CPAC head: Christie "doesn't deserve" to be a Republican

Einzige said:
So you think that you had to have opposed elective democracy in its entirety in order to count as a 'conservative' in 1828? Praytell, when do you think this changed? Surely no conservative completely opposes the ballot today. Even those lunatics who want to turn back over to the state legislatures elections to the Senate do not oppose electing the state legislators themselves.
Click to expand...

Modern American politics takes place within the liberal democratic framework established in the first half of the 19th century, and subsequently influenced by the Civil War, industrialization and the great national exertions of the 20th century. What we call our conservative-liberal spectrum is really -- in historical terms -- a liberal-more liberal spectrum.:cool:
 
Re: CPAC head: Christie "doesn't deserve" to be a Republican

Fiddytree said:
I have plenty of tools. I should be employing them right now instead of being on this forum. Perhaps you served as a good reminder to go back to researching conservative nuclear strategists of the Cold War.
Click to expand...

Looks like a content-free post.:roll:
 
Re: CPAC head: Christie "doesn't deserve" to be a Republican

Jack Hays said:
Modern American politics takes place within the liberal democratic framework established in the first half of the 19th century, and subsequently influenced by the Civil War, industrialization and the great national exertions of the 20th century. What we call our conservative-liberal spectrum is really -- in historical terms -- a liberal-more liberal spectrum.:cool:
Click to expand...

This... isn't a particularly good way to look at things.

'Liberalism' didn't begin on some sunny day in summer 1776. Liberalism had been a force, even a dominant one, in Great Britain for a half-century prior to the American Revolution. And the American Revolutionaries were operating in that context. Everything the Revolutionaries fought for was documented in the annals of British liberalism in the mid-eighteenth century. And conservatism, as both a reaction to and incorporation of that liberalism, didn't arrive ex nihilo on the scene with the Goldwater campaign.
 
Re: CPAC head: Christie "doesn't deserve" to be a Republican

Einzige said:
This... isn't a particularly good way to look at things.

'Liberalism' didn't begin on some sunny day in summer 1776. Liberalism had been a force, even a dominant one, in Great Britain for a half-century prior to the American Revolution. And the American Revolutionaries were operating in that context. Everything the Revolutionaries fought for was documented in the annals of British liberalism in the mid-eighteenth century. And conservatism, as both a reaction to and incorporation of that liberalism, didn't arrive ex nihilo on the scene with the Goldwater campaign.
Click to expand...

Now you're agreeing with me. Well done. It all goes back to Hobbes through Locke, et al. American politics takes place in that stream.:cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom