He was a terrible governor of California, and he and is friends saddled the state with Proposition 13, a meat axe approach to a taxation problem that required a scalpel. He single handedly destroyed the most prestigious public university – the University of California – because he couldn't deal rationally with the Free Speech Movement.

He gave us the infamous Reaganomics, where balancing a budget didn't count. He demonized “liberals” as virtual Communists in a fashion reminiscent of Joe McCarthy. He gave us Iran-Contra which was one more reason that this country has little moral currency in the world.

Reagan and the Right were a terrible aberation from traditional Republican restraint from meddling in personal affairs and fiscal conservatism. Their party is thankfully over.

His allignment with the Falwells and Robertsons invited the government into our private lives and he is to blame for some of our loss of personal privacy. Ironically the opponent of big government actually contributed to it, as this interest group began demanding more government goodies and the legislation of morality.

Reagan was successful in large part, because he exhibited common sense, and could be flexible when needed . He was smart enough to know how hard to push the Soviets as their empire collapsed, and knew that we would not win in in Lebanon. People found his grandfatherly demeanor reassuring.

The ideology he espoused has not worked in modern day because present day conservatives betrayed their principles in some areas and were too rigid in others.

Having said that, he also gave us trickle down Reaganomics which has hurt the poor and middle class, and destroyed the unions, hurting blue collar workers. It was always a give-away for the wealthy class in this country- as his economic advisor finally admitted. Reagan was also known as the 'teflon president” and was unhurt by the Iran-Contra scandal-even after Americans found out he had lied to them repeatedly about it.

I've often wondered how the GOP would have treated a Carter or Clinton if they had gotten involved in something like that — or if either had been involved in outing a CIA agent whose entire operation was jeopardized. Would they have been remembered as true blue patriots and emulated by every other Democrat to follow? I doubt it seriously.

A politician who got his start by screaming racist at anyone who did not do what he wants is not a consensus builder. Obama's history in Chicago is one who play the power politics of clout just like any other old type New Dealer.

And if you look at Obama proposals for education, crime, and social pathologies, he does demonstrate his sanity because those problems cannot be solved easily so he avoids them.

What the author fails to realize is that these Democrats are not, in fact, the same old Democrats his father dealt with. We're looking at a new Democratic party, and the GOP hasn't adapted its game to keep up with the new century. A GOP that's still playing like it's 1979 will be doomed to exile in the 21st century. I believe there is a future for small-government conservatism, but it must first embrace environmentalism, and soundly reject the small-minded, racially- and religiously-tinged identity politics that have dominated McCain and Palin's campaign.

A party that pushes away anyone who isn't a small-town white Christian is going to have to re-think its strategy in a country that is increasingly ecumenical and non-white.

Whatever the reality, a movement or philosophy that survives its creators will come to be judged by the actions of those who say they are its standard bearers even if they have distorted the original beyond recognition. So the Soviet Union and China have irredeemably damaged whatever reputation Marxism might have had if someone had not hijacked concepts meant to point a way (And I am not saying that it is the correct way.) for a mature industrial society as Marx saw the Industrial Revolution to take over nations that were overwhelmingly agrarian. Marx thought that people would actually want to create a society like he envisioned but it of course inevitably led to tyranny of the worst kind. Now we have those who say that they are the heirs of Reagan insisting that tax cuts can fix anything, that the free market makes no errors and should have virtually no regulation, that a particularly extreme “conservative” version of Christianity should guide our laws and that anyone who disagrees must be an anti-American Marxist/socialist. Seppuku, anyone?

If Senator Obama is wanting to move forward, then why are most of his proposal look like New Deal proposals or a repeat of Johnson's Great Society. If moving forward is the ideal, then neither presidential candidate is for you.

The problems with conservatives being in office is that they are unwilling to cut programs that are headed by their political cronies and friends.