I guess that means me ...

... given I'm the only conservative Republican (more of the former then the latter I might add).

First, this was a very astute comment:

We are still pandering to a Communist state, in no way different than every Presidential administration did to the USSR prior to Reagan!!!

Now, in regards to Reagan I can only assume when you say, "WHO was it that defeated communism in the 20th century?" That you were slipping a jab at those who pray at Reagan's alter. On that score let me point out that we always refer to Reagan, and quite appropriately, as defeating the Soviet Union, the evil empire, and so on. I have not, nor have I ever heard any conservative Reaganite claim, he defeated "communism" in total.

Furthermore - every president since 1945 has singled out one (or more with one being the primary) communist regime, and sought to disable it as a threat to the free world, through either hot or cold wars or a failed "getting along" approach (as in Carter). Truman went into Korea to prevent Chinese communism from spreading. No less then three presidents can lay claim to focusing on Vietnam - JFK, Johnson & Nixon (can't remember if Eisenhower sent in "advisers", I think he did) and clearly preventing the spread of communism was the preface of our involvement in that South East Asian country. Post Vietnam the USSR came into particular focus (although we had clearly been engaged in a Cold war since the fall of Berlin if not before), and Carter had the USSR as his communist focal point - although he was inept and focused on getting along rather then confrontation. Then Reagan, also obviously the USSR. What this means is that every president since WWII thru Reagan and into Bush 41 had communism as it primary foe in one form or another, each putting a particular regime, and its dismantlement, as the focus of their time in office (and in Ronnie's defense defeating the USSR along with his allies was far and away a more necessary task versus dealing with China - and I think Thatcher & Pope John Paul would (of) agreed). Not until Bill Clinton took office did the US strategic policy change its focus. Bill took his eye off the ball in terms of confronting communism and its last major vestige - China. The 90's were supposed to be good times, rock and roll Internet billionaire time, no need to bring up communist regimes in the midst of all that, besides the USSR is gone. In fact, why don't we utilize the enormous work force and consumer base that China is and grant them most favored nation status? Now I know both parties are culpable, and Bush has simply maintained the status quo in that regard but let us bare in mind it was a Democrat that for the first time in nearly 50 years took confronting communism as a world-wide epidemic off the strategic table. And I'll further add that only Republicans took confronting the evils of communism (namely embodied in the USSR) seriously in the post Johnson administration era (note I said only Republicans, not all Republicans).

From the literature I read businessmen in China are now joining the communist party in order to make business contacts - how's that for a contradiction? And therein lies what I have dubbed "the policy of hope." It's Glasnost without the balls to back it up. We (embodied in Clinton and Bush 43) are simply hoping that if we do enough business with China that one day they'll wake up and say, "what is this, this communist thing? We like capitalism, look at all my flat screen TV's. Okay everybody, we're done with that communism stuff, silly us, who wants to vote?" It's a dubious approach at best. And now the entire Western world falls under the label of "enabler' of the PRC - the Olympics don't get there on their own.