Posted on 10/16/2006 7:43:32 AM PDT by rellimpank
As Ronald Reagan was thanking me I was both depressed and embarrassed.
It was November, 1986. After a solid two years of effort, the Congressional elections in the sixth year of the Reagan presidency had gone badly.
The 1980 Reagan landslide over Jimmy Carter had produced twelve new Republican Senate seats, giving the GOP a Senate majority for the first time since 1954. It made the Senate a critical ally for Reagan as he set about rebuilding the nation's military, getting forward-looking young conservatives onto the federal bench and passing the landmark tax cuts needed to revitalize an almost crippled economy.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
However, I don't expect us to lose the Congress . . . I don't believe 2006 will be another 1986.
Excellent article. It has a great message for all of us.
That being said, I believe that 2006 will not be like 1986. I think the libs are in for a big disappointment in November.
Good article. Thanks.
No it isn't going to be another 1986. The campaign against the Demonrats has just begun. Their own words are being used against them and they are crying fowl.
Well, yes. They are crying fowl: Whiny Chicken$#!+ ...
I know Jeff Lord and he is really smart and insightful. It would behoove us all from time to time to think about Ronald Reagan and his example. He was right about almost everything.
(snip)
The Oldest and Wisest knew that the Reagan era was in fact only a chapter -- albeit a fairly dramatic chapter -- in what was an endless story about, as he also said, "millions and millions of Americans who want what (conservatives) want...that want it (America) to be that city on a shining hill." Not from Ronald Reagan would there ever be an apology for his beliefs, nor any second guessing of what he always knew was nothing more than a momentary setback. He had relentlessly campaigned on his principles, and regretted not a moment of it. As I watched that day in the Oval Office, when we were done, he simply smiled, sat back down behind his desk and moved on to changing America -- and not so coincidentally, the world.
LET'S LEAVE 1986 AND TAKE A LOOK at the following randomly selected events from recent headlines.
* Leftist students shut down a presentation by representatives of the Minutemen border patrol group at Columbia University.
* New CBS anchor Katie Couric's ratings plummet after barely a month on the air.
* North Korea tests a nuclear weapon after promising the Clinton administration that they would never do so. Clinton Secretary of State Madeleine Albright acknowledges that the North Koreans cheated on their promise.
Each of these issues touches on core principles of the conservative revolution which Reagan led and why he had so much long-term confidence in the response of the American people to those conservative principles.
The Columbia students, of course, illustrated quite visually a philosophy of liberal intolerance for dissent and free speech that repeatedly drives thoughtful Americans into the arms of the conservative movement.
CBS and Ms. Couric's failure illustrates a point that was easily predictable before Katie even sat down in the anchor chair. Putting Rush Limbaugh on CBS air in a "free speech" segment certainly pumped Couric's ratings for a moment. But conservatives -- Reagan were he here and surely Limbaugh himself -- realized exactly what the problem was that lie ahead. CBS tried to demonstrate that they were free of liberal bias by giving ol' Rush a few seconds of airtime. What they had no intention of doing was eliminating the liberal bias of the show's writers, producers and reporters, much less of Ms. Couric herself. Result? The new boss is the same as the old boss. The philosophical presentation of the new CBS News hasn't changed a whit from the days when Dan or Walter or Bill Moyers looked somberly into the lens to insist they were telling the news "the way it was." Still, there had to be a terrifying "ping" when CBS execs realized that Rush Limbaugh brought higher ratings to CBS News than Dan Rather ever could. Could -- would -- that ever happen? Would they have the guts to make "America's anchorman" the CBS anchorman? The people in charge of CBS News would sooner crunch down on a cyanide tablet before naming Rush Limbaugh or any other conservative the anchor and managing editor of their show. Even if it meant winning the ratings for the next century. Fair and balanced is not now or ever in the cards at CBS, and Ms. Couric's ratings have tumbled accordingly. Besides, why would Rush Limbaugh want a demotion?
Last but not least is North Korea. It's all been said, including by me in this space. Appeasement has become the staple of the modern day Democratic Party. It has been so since 1968. It didn't work then, it didn't work in 1994. It didn't work for Chamberlain, it didn't work for Carter or Clinton and it won't work now. A majority of Americans understand that. Again as Reagan knew, they also understand that conservatives understand.
No matter where you look, from think tanks to talk radio shows, from television to publishing, from religion to law to the Internet, the conservative future is not just simply here, it is the future itself. (The conservative present usually rides pretty high on the New York Times bestseller list, too!)
No deviant Congressman, no bad polls or a lost election will stop this.
Ronald Reagan understood that. Eventually so did I, never again depressed and embarrassed over the 1986 election.
Conservatives can take a lesson from The Oldest and Wisest. Smile, stick to first principles -- and go back to work. Another victory is always -- always -- just around the corner.
(snip)
Quite simply I refuse to be a pessimist!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.