Lyles: Moderate conservatives doing well
By Dick Lyles
Oh my! I’m not quite sure how the topic strayed from “where has traditional conservatism gone” to “let Amy tell us all her misperceptions about Republicans.” But before I answer her questions, let me first establish a rational perspective.
Dick Lyles
For the record, both parties represent ideological continuums. Democrats range from left wing radicals to liberals to moderates. Republicans range from moderate to conservative to right wing ideologues. These factions thrive in both parties, in spite of the fact that both sides paint the other in the most extreme light possible.
I don’t know of anyone who ever called Chuck Percy or Dwight D. Eisenhower conservatives. Percy came from the moderate wing of the party. Eisenhower wasn’t even a politician in the true sense of the word. He was elected president after World War II because of his success as Allied commander-in-chief. Many moderates today identify as Republican. Amy, you even said one of them (John Huntsman) would be your choice for Republican presidential nominee because he is so much like Chuck Percy.
Also for the record, professional warriors and conservatives do not have the evil intentions regarding war that Amy, Hollywood, and Amy’s liberal cohorts claim. I don’t know a conservative or a professional military person who wants war or is eager to have it. All those I know would agree with Amy’s Eisenhower quote, as do I. Nowhere is this consequence demonstrated so profoundly as it is today in North Korea.
But it is because of countries like North Korea that we need a strong national defense. Please note the word is defense, not offense. Veterans like me served in war because we believed we were serving our country, not because we sought war. Service to our nation and our citizens — not hunger for conflict — was my motive and the motive of everyone with whom I served. That’s why I was confused when I came home and was spit on by liberals who claimed to be fellow countrymen. By the way, the Vietnam war was started by JFK and escalated expansively by LBJ, both liberal Democrats.
As for some of Amy’s other comments: Science has definitely become biased and self-serving, as have most special interest groups. Their conceit is among the worst, because scientists go to such great lengths to camouflage their prejudices under the guise of objectivity and reason — pure baloney. Conservatives do not believe government is their enemy when properly administered. They believe Big Government works against the common good, which it does. The conceit of government is as bad as that of science because it suckers people like Amy into thinking the federal government cares about the entire country when it, too, has become a predominately self-serving leech working against general prosperity and the common good.
If the tea party and “theo-cons” (?) have such a strangle hold on the Republican Party, then how do moderate Republicans (such as Romney and McCain) almost always win the nomination? I’ll tell you. Last year in this column I correctly predicted Mitt Romney would win the Republican nomination. He won because Republicans value the very traits Amy missed. His pragmatism and the consensus building skills he demonstrated as a successful businessman, chairman of the Olympic Committee, and governor of Massachusetts carried the day.
Although the economy beat McCain in 2008, Mitt Romney will beat Barack Hussein Obama in 2012 because people value Mr. Romney’s pragmatic consensus building over Mr. Obama’s polarizing brand of political divisiveness, along with his socialistic addiction to Big Government. And Amy still won’t get it!
Lyles, a Poway resident, is an author and film producer. Reach him at dick@dicklyles.com.
No related posts.
Short URL: http://www.pomeradonews.com/?p=26722
Posted by Staff
on Jul 11 2012. Filed under Columnists.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0.
You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
Well done Dick! You managed to call me irrational and a sucker all in the one column.
How convenient to dismiss Eisenhower and Percy as phony conservatives. And yet one was president and the other went from being president of Bell & Howell to Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and was a leading opinion shaper of his party for nearly two decades. Seems to me better that Republicans would follow in those footsteps rather than in the footsteps of hair-dos like Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman, and Donald Trump.
Kennedy and LBJ were far apart on their views re: Vietnam. You accuse me of lumping all Republicans together and then turn around and do the same.
With regard to those peacenik Republicans you know, who among them opposed the preemptive war the US launched against Iraq? Seems to me the $9 billion/month that we spent there could have been used to feed, educate, and clothe many Americans.
Your views on science are just plain scary. God forbid "objectivity and reason" should enter into rational debate. But then I guess that's what happens to otherwise intelligent people like yourself who watch too much Fox News. I think I'll phone my son at his job at the UCSD physics lab right now and suggest he start using a bit more subjectivity and faith in his experiments on infrared polarizers.
Finally why is it you use President Obama's full name and not Mitt Romney's? (Willard Mitt Romny). At best it is asymmetrical and at worst it hints at racism.
Take it easy Amy and try to be more accurate in your reponses to Dick. When you're not you sound childish.
I'll give your advice some consideration. Out of curiosity, what did you find to be inaccurate?
Dick did not say Percy and Eisenhower were phoney conservatives. He said they were moderates. LBJ and Kennedy were not far apart on their views. Both used the war to boost the economy. You mustn't forget that Most Dems voted to go to war in Iraq. What is not objective about what he said re: science? You would be more effective arguing with rational facts than with irrational accusations and rantings.
Okay Dick.
Not Dick, sorry! May I add, don't make erroneous assumptions.
Amy, how do I get a gig as a columnist ? I couldn't do much worse!
editor@pomeradonews.com
Amy, you simply are not paying attention. Let me respond point by point.
To your paragraph:
#2: I didn’t say Eisenhower and Percy were phony conservatives. I said they were moderates … not a critical term nor meant in a critical sense. I respect them both.
#3: I said nothing about Kennedy’s and Johnson’s views. I said Kennedy began our involvement and Johnson escalated it – both true statements.
#4: Most Democrats and Republicans in both houses supported the Iraq move. This vote did not differentiate between “traditional conservatives” and “today’s conservatives.” It didn’t differentiate between any groups or factions. Bad example.
#5: A significant segment of the scientific community has become biased and self-serving. Consider both sides of the global warming debate for starters. But it extends to pharmaceutical researchers, medical researchers, cosmology, and many other fields.
#6: Willard Mitt Romny would have been incorrect. It is Willard Mitt Romney.
Please read my January 4, 2012, column and you can add another modifier to your Paragraph 1.
Now we're getting somewhere Dick! You respect Eisenhower and Percy. Now answer my question: what happened to the likes of them? Richard Lugar and Olympia Snowe were the last remaining moderates of the Eisenhower/Percy type to serve in the Senate. Both will be gone come January. Where our their heir apparents?
There is plenty of evidence to suggest Kennedy was looking for an exit strategy from Vietnam. As for LBJ's hawkish tendencies and influence over Kennedy on the matter, see Robert Caro's excellent biography.
Your column said you don't know a single conservative or professional military person who is eager to have war. My comment asked who among those you know opposed the preemptive (eager?) invasion of Iraq? Answer the question rather than evading it.
I'll admit I can't spell if you admit you can't count.
Why did you use Obama's middle name and not Romney's? Again, answer the question.
Ah yes, your infamous Jan. 4 column in which you called me ignorant and stupid. To quote one of my favorite conservatives (Tom Yarnall): "when a person goes into a character assassination mode they do so because they have nothing logical to say, or a response worthy of consideration."
WOW ! – talk about 'infrared polarizers'!
You two are really heating it up from each end of the pole (or 'optical' ends of the spectrum – so to speak).
Be careful…don't poke your eye out :)
Another fine example of Dick's polarizing brand of political divisiveness. Is it too much to ask for a concrete example or two of how science has become "biased and self-serving"? I'm not saying it never is, but to disparage the entire field with one unsubstantiated statement is both lazy and frivolous. Not to mention biased and self-serving.
"people value Mr. Romney’s pragmatic consensus building over Mr. Obama’s polarizing brand of political divisiveness, along with his socialistic addiction to Big Government."
So…individual mandate for healthcare vs. individual mandate for healthcare?
The differences are so stark!