That's the hallmark of bad reading, stupidity, or both. I'll bite....it's both.

'It's pretty bad when I have to quote the author, because the author doesn't even remember what the hell they wrote. "Instead, last night's victory signaled the end of several things. The first was the end of the Nixon Era." Clinton and Carter -- both Presidents since Nixon which makes them part of your "Nixon Era".
So, you indeed did lump them into the mix, Sir, and I simply pointed out how nonsensical that premise was and most of what follows.

To say that someone resided in an Era does not mean that they partook of a particular part of that era. Not all Victorians were uptight, not all Gilded Age denizens were rich white men, nor were all the Presidents of the Nixon Era Nixonian. By that standard, the aforementioned Lincolnian Era would have meant that US Grant, Warren Harding, and Herbert Hoover shared Lincoln's virtues. To repeat: Nowhere do I call Clinton nor Carter Nixonian. And your inabiluty to show where, and then show that I was, indeed, correct, says how little gray matter you possess.

I also have a rule of thumb I use to determine that I'm winning an argument. They use the "Straw Man" defense or they hurl insults. You did both with myself and Howard, so we have the satisfaction of knowing we have bested such a superior intellect.

So superior that you don't even recognize that you quote your own strawman in a losing cause? O for 2. Wanna go for trey?

Did you even read the piece? Nowhere do I call Clinton nor Carter Nixonian. The rest of your reply dribbles down your chim from there. Strawmen must be nice and soft to hug.

Perhaps you noticed the things I mentioned all happened from Reagan forward? Reagan increased military spending, Reagan instigated supply-side, etc.

You jumped all over the place in history. When you use examples from the 20's to refute examples I used from the 80's, well, I'm sorry but I'm not convinced.

I used examples from other times to show your claims that Reagan was revolutionary was false. A revolution institutes new and bold ideas. Reagan had none. So, your protestations are, again, based upon misreadings. Whether willful or not is beside the point.

'You proceed from a false assumption. In order for Nixon to have put "flesh and life" on the Goldwater conservative approach, he would have to have actually been a Goldwater conservative. Nixon would have had to do all these nasty things he was doing under the banner of Goldwater conservatism. *Reagan* was the Goldwater conservative, not Nixon.'

Actually, your presumption was false. Clearly, by admitting Nixon funded the Great Society, the flesh and life I was referring to was the Bircher level xenophobia and racism that Goldwater masqued, but which Nixon embraced.

By the way, who used the "Daisy" ad in 1964? Wasn't that LBJ? Wasn't that the very essence of "attacking opponents on personal levels"? Just because Nixon fought dirty you can't suddenly shoe-horn him into the Goldwater mold. That just doesn't fly logically.

The Daisy ad ran once, and it was an attack on many of Goldwater's claims about war and policy. Later, Goldwater even made explicit that he wd have nuked Vietnam, so that ad vs. Nixon's skullduggery is simply a bad comparison.

In 1968, Nixon ran under the "Bring Us Together" and "Plan To End Vietnam" banners. Those were hardly Goldwater mantras. And yet your whole thesis is based on you fallaciously joining together Goldwater and Nixon simply because Nixon was nasty and a crook. So I ask: who is being the ideologue?

You are, because the piece and my replies link the two for a shared belief system about social stratification and how to deal with the 'others.' Nixon mad explicit what Goldwater implied. Reagan saw Nixon get roasted for that, and thus used weasel words to hide his racism.

'Obscenely huge military spending increases, largely still intact.'

Do you think he was the first or last Prez to increase the military budget?

'Lowering of tax brackets to support trickle-down "VooDoo" economics, largely still intact.'

Did you somehow miss the Roaring Twenties in history class?

'20 out of 28 years of Republicans in the White House.'

That's dominance, not revolution; and had Al Gore pressed his case better, the last 16 likely would have been Democratic.

'Hmmm. Yeah, I guess you're right. There was no Reagan Revolution.'

It's always good to see the young learn from their wiser elders. You're welcome.

Which is why I did not state that. Here's what I said: "That's because it was Nixon's own brand of personal viciousness that put flesh and life on the skeletal ideas and vision of Goldwater that Reagan merely refried. The last four decades of Right Wing ascendancy have not been noted for any great innovations in political governance, but the rising tide of personal invective, wedge issues, and the nurturing of celebrity over quality. All of these things are quintessentially Nixonian, not Reaganesque. Yes, there is some truth to the old adage that Johnson started the Great Society, but Nixon funded it. Yet, that was less ideology than placating rabble rousers as Nixon vainly tried to end the Vietnam War. From Watergate to the Enemies List to illegal bombings in Cambodia to attacking opponents on personal levels; all of this has only flowered, especially on the Right. Reagan simply needed a Nixon to flourish, and, so, the last forty years of politics, that came to an end last night, get the imprimatur of the larger historical figure, for good or ill, and that figure is indisputably Nixon."

Clearly, ideas such as the approach to Vietnam, the approaches to social engineering, corporate policy, etc. were endowed by Goldwater, but, I did state Nixon funded the Great Society.

It's called reading and not being an ideologue.

Which is why I did not state that. Here's what I said: "That's because it was Nixon's own brand of personal viciousness that put flesh and life on the skeletal ideas and vision of Goldwater that Reagan merely refried. The last four decades of Right Wing ascendancy have not been noted for any great innovations in political governance, but the rising tide of personal invective, wedge issues, and the nurturing of celebrity over quality. All of these things are quintessentially Nixonian, not Reaganesque. Yes, there is some truth to the old adage that Johnson started the Great Society, but Nixon funded it. Yet, that was less ideology than placating rabble rousers as Nixon vainly tried to end the Vietnam War. From Watergate to the Enemies List to illegal bombings in Cambodia to attacking opponents on personal levels; all of this has only flowered, especially on the Right. Reagan simply needed a Nixon to flourish, and, so, the last forty years of politics, that came to an end last night, get the imprimatur of the larger historical figure, for good or ill, and that figure is indisputably Nixon."

Clearly, ideas such as the approach to Vietnam, the approaches to social engineering, corporate policy, etc. were endowed by Goldwater, but, I did state Nixon funded the Great Society.

It's called reading and not being an ideologue.