Actually, it’s not necessarily more congenial to me. Not all conservative Democrats were racist and not all of them became Republicans, but they did get squeezed out of the party and that wasn’t entirely to my liking. And I agree it’s one reason why it’s struggling not to be a minority party.
They were a minority within the majority. Being part of the majority gave conservative Democrats advantages, like chairmanships, etc. Once the big shift began, starting with Newt, they became Republicans.
And now we have two Democratic senators, but it’s been a long, painful process. But I predict that at the state level, we’re becoming another North Carolina. I think we can thank both Reagan and now Trump for that.
I think they were key to a lot of Reagan‘s congressional victories.
I might add that this state has stayed solid red (well, with the occasional exception, like Wyche Fowler) until fairly recently. But Clinton was able to carry it and Biden got it by the famous 11,000 votes.
Once Sunny Purdue was elected governor in 2002 to everyone’s surprise (including Purdue), almost overnight (or that’s how it felt anyway) all those Democrats became Republicans. In other words, southern Democrats, or at least a great many of them, were just Republicans in waiting.
Well, maybe not trans dimensional but Reagan did have a not very secret weapon: conservative Democrats. When I moved to Georgia from New York in 1991, the state was still controlled by southern Democrats, from Sam Nunn to Zell Miller. They controlled the state house and the congressional delegation.
Again, fair, but that's because there were still conservative Democrats around in those days. Tip O'Neill opposed the bill but obviously didn't prevent a vote on it.
True and your point is valid. But Republicans had taken the senate and Tip, in the face of a landslide, knew when to bend so as not to break.
'Texas A&M philosophy professor Martin Peterson is leaving the university after administrators told him in January that he couldn’t teach Plato’s Symposium in his philosophy class; they said the ancient Greek philosopher’s work violated the system’s restrictions on gender and sexuality content.' 1/3
It is the through line of modern Republican economics since Reagan. Not that, for example Clinton was always right about taxes or regulations or economics. It was under Clinton that Glass-Steagall was repealed, and that didn’t work out so well either.
Clinton was excoriated by Republicans and Democrats lost seats in Congress because they dared to do the obvious correct thing, which was raised the top marginal rate. I could go on, but you get the idea. It is a zombie idea that refuses to go to its grave.
George W. Bush swore at the Republican convention that there would be no new taxes. When he raised taxes, he was crucified by his own party. Clinton raised the top marginal rate. I don’t see that as a sign that he believed that cutting rates would raise funds.
Republican politicians placed bets that Reagan would never raise taxes. Instead, he raised them several times when he was forced to find money. At first, of course, they wouldn’t call them taxes. They were “revenue enhancements.“ But raise taxes he did.
I find this a curious reading of history. Reagan cut taxes dramatically in the firm belief, encouraged by the likes of Arthur Laffer, that cutting top marginal rates would actually raise revenues, and the tax cuts would pay for themselves. This did not happen.
There were still Republicans, including 'moderates' like Susan Collins, who claimed that the tax cuts for the wealthy in the first Trump term would 'pay for themselves'. This remains an unshakable Republican dogma, thanks in large part to Reagan.
Democrats may like lower rates and fewer deductions—or at least they did—but Reaganism also involved so-called supply side economics. If you look you might find a Democrat or two who swallowed that BS, but most didn't (and I seem to recall a prominent Republican who called it 'voodoo economics').
Tom, while I concede that Reagan did a good thing or two, I detested him and still do.
And I would give anything to make Reagan president right now.
He was the only good thing in Live and Let Die.
Nevertheless, I still knew oddballs in the 80s who somehow had convinced themselves that Cuba and the USSR were workers paradises.
Nor was there any lack of responsible media coverage, making it clear that the USSR, if it wasn’t about to implode, was still struggling like a giant with Parkinson’s disease. The New York Times had plenty of such coverage.
As someone who traveled over large parts of the USSR in 1984 and again in 1987, I can tell you without hesitation that a) life there sucked and b) Soviet citizens were intensely curious about the west and c) whenever they came here, they just got more depressed about their home.
Something I’ve never forgiven Mario Como for. He was all set to run and then at the last minute, chose not to. He would’ve cleaned Bush’s clock.
We baptized over a dozen young men in our OCA parish last week. I still think the challenge will be to see where they are two to five years down the road.
No. How long have you been doing this, Tom? I expect numerous efforts to read all of this negatively by people incapable of hope or happiness.
questions: 1-do you put it on a rack in the pot? Because I do and the results seem pretty good. Two – when you say cover, do you cover with a lid or just tin it with tinfoil? 3 – do you put any liquid on the bottom? I put some cheap red wine, a Chianti, and it makes a good gravy for the potatoes.
Not trolling (I don’t do that). Probably having a problem with “since.” I sincerely wish you a good day and the drinks are on me if we ever meet.
Correct. You're already a size too big. But that's OK, I mean, I used the lamb recipe today.
VIKTOR ORBÀN CAN STILL WIN IF MIKE PENCE HAS THE COURAGE.
Sticking with presidents, along with Stevenson there’s William Jennings Bryan (three times). Hubert Humphrey deserves an honorable mention.