Posted on 02/06/2007 7:18:30 AM PST by BunnySlippers
lol.......
It's true that America has never before had such a dangerous strain of decadence within her population, manifested as the Left, with so dangerous a Propaganda Machine as the "Mainstream Newsmedia" and so dangerous a Political Machine as the Democrat Party.
However, we, the caretakers of The American Dream, must not loose sight of our responsibility. Our most immediate task is defeating the Democrats at the polls and preventing a Leftist coup d'etat, that could destroy the U.S.A. and The American Dream.
MESSAGE TO ALL: A Democrat defeat must be our top priority.
Reagan didn't get credit for most
of the things he did in office, either.
After he left the White House, he became
the Doer Par Excellance. And from then
on, we constantly heard the phrase,
"Mr Gorbachevv, tear down this wall!"
NONE: All media (P.C.) and establishment created candidates..
I personally support Real Conservative "X".. maybe pence, maybe hunter, maybe gingrich, who knows...
maybe, but MCROMNEYGILIANI aaren't the only one's whom can defeat, or should be considered to defeat the liberal (democractic candidates: possilby hills.). I AM SO SICK OF THE ARGUMENT BY THE "moderates"; THAT ONLY McCain, Guiliani, or Romney basically the (Moderate-to liberal) Candidates: ARE THE ONLY ONES WHOM CAN DEFEAT DEMOCRATS; In fact I would say they make it LESS likely we will defeat the Demo, unlike a truely Reaganesqe candidates would: We must stand up for our founding principles, and it doesn't come with (establishment-lierals).
Anybody that thinks THAT has been brain washed by the main Stream media..
Not a lot of difference between them and Ted Kennedy on issues.. all three of them..
NEWT could indeed be the next Reagan though.. you know, RONALD REAGAN..
Searching for the "next Reagan" is pretty dumb. We need a good mainstream conservative NOW.
My priest didn't look great dressed as a woman either, but he did it for charity.
It's a pretty popular way to raise money, but maybe I get out more often and go to more charitable parties than most around here do.
What did Reagan do when 240 marines were killed in Lebanon by terrorists? He pulled all troops out and ran, with no consequences to the terrorists.
Yes, but remember how revolutionary the tax cut was at the time. To get the one tax cut through was huge back in the early 80's. Reagan was a true path-breaker here. He had to fight enormous counter forces. Don't forget that Reagan had to do this with a democratic house.
As for the amnesty, well, you win a few, you lose a few. People didn't know then what they know now. Given what we know now, W's proposal of amnesty is complete lunacy.
As for the terrorists, he did come back and bomb Quaddaffy in Libia. And we also invaded Granada to turn back the Soviets in this hemisphere. The war on terror couldn't begin in earnest until the Cold War was won. That was Reagan's priority. Blaming him for "cutting and running" after the fact overlooks the historical context. Reagan defeated the one main enemy of the time, the Soviet Block. Reagan never wavered in that fight, and that was the major issue of time.
Having defended Reagan here, I get a little tired of all the talk about the "next Reagan." There won't be one. Reagan (as well as Thatcher and Pope John Paul II) were great men who came to the fore in specific historical circumstances. They played out their providential roles in specific historical contexts. My Gosh, it was 25+ yrs ago that JP II, Thatcher and REagan came to power. Republicans need to stop being hung up on the past and embrace the present and the future with hope. Stop pushing the same buttons that worked 25 yrs ago--a whole generation has come between then and now. Embracing the present and the future with hope--That would be truely "Reaganesque." The next "Reagan" will be one who meets the challenges of our time. WE loved Reagan because whatever his shortcomings (moral or political), he appealed to good side of our nature. He inspired us. He appealed to that "good thing" in every true American's heart that knows how bad things can be but hopes for the future anyway. He had a "redemptive vision" of the world. I don't know quite how to express this...
Anyway, Newt seems to be the most Reaganesque out there in this vague sense. Click here for the ethos Newt is able to project (Damn, watching this does make me nostalgic for Reagan and that whole era). Anyway, I also wonder if we haven't passed the time where electing people to serve in gov't is effective. The culture war is the main thing. This will be won not with armies, but in churches, schools, and in those "tone-setting" places of our society. I wonder if gov't isn't beside the point in this struggle.
Kennedy cut taxes too so Reagan's use of tax cuts was not as revolutionary as you claim.
Are you saying Reagan's illegal amnesty was the first time it was tried? I'd have to research that. It didn't seem like a new idea at the time to me.
Yes, Reagan bombed Qaddafi and don't' forget he also sent jets after the animals who took the cruise liner and killed the guy in the wheelchair. Good strong stuff, no doubt. However, the pull out from Lebanon was a miscalculation and a show of weakness just as Blackhawk down and Somalia showed weakness. Sometimes one can't wait for the Cold War to end before taking on terrorists and I don't believe Reagan consciously thought anything of the sort. I believe Reagan saw the terrorists of the time as tools that were being used by the Soviets.
Embracing the present and the future with hope--That would be truely "Reaganesque." The next "Reagan" will be one who meets the challenges of our time. WE loved Reagan because whatever his shortcomings (moral or political), he appealed to good side of our nature. He inspired us. He appealed to that "good thing" in every true American's heart that knows how bad things can be but hopes for the future anyway. He had a "redemptive vision" of the world. I don't know quite how to express this...
That was VERY well expressed. What I liked about Reagan is that he changed. He saw that earlier policies that he supported were not always the best and he adapted. I wish we'd allow the same luxury to some of our current crop of conservatives. If conservatives won't ever forgive people who change their mind and agree with them, they condemn themselves to futility.
Anyway, I also wonder if we haven't passed the time where electing people to serve in gov't is effective. The culture war is the main thing. This will be won not with armies, but in churches, schools, and in those "tone-setting" places of our society. I wonder if gov't isn't beside the point in this struggle.
During the 2000 primaries when Dubya was asked about abortion he said he was against it but that the American people weren't ready to change the laws. He stressed changing people's hearts as the first step. This seems in line with what you are suggesting.
"On this item Romney does well. The Massachusetts budget and economy are in much better shape due to his leadership and democracy may prevail on the gay marriage issue solely because of his efforts."
Speaking of Reagan.... Happy Birthday, Mr. President!
If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, and that's what I told these radical conservatives who never got used to it.
~~ Ronald Reagan, in his autobiography, An American Life .
Another stupid article trying to tear Ronald Reagan down to the leftwing level of Rudy McRomney. And on his birthday, nonetheless.
Where's the barf alert?
Well, Bush was more in the fifty per cent range, and Rudy McRomney, on the fundamentals of conservative principle, are approaching zero...at least if you get past their current lying rhetoric and look at reality. And it ain't "radical" to say so.
I am not sure about McCain and Rudy, but I think they are over the 50% mark!
And I know that Romney provides us much more than 50%. He's prolife, he opposes amnesty and supports tougher border security, he is stong on the WOT, he understands the long-term struggle against Islamic jihiad, he has the executive, leadership experience presidents need, he is fiscally conservative and balanced a budget with no new taxes, opposes embryonic stem cell research, opposes McCain-Feingold and has many high profile conservative endorsements etc and so forth.
None of the candidates are perfect. If you can find the 100% candidate who can beat Hillary, you should vote for him.
I will heed Ronald Reagan's warning and accept less than perfection, in order to avoid something far worse.
I didn't mean to say that it was "revolutionary." Yes, Kennedy cut taxes, and Coolidge cut taxes before that. But Coolidge could work with a republican congress. Kennedy's cuts were pre-Great Society. Reagan simply deserved credit for turning the climate of opinion against the Great Society programs that eventually led to the Welfare reform of the 90's (Led by the pubbie Congress and signed by Clinton, of all people--on the third try I think).
Anyway, my point was that we can't abstract from historical conditions. In any case, a political leader can only do 2 or 3 great things. Reagan focused on the Cold War (a win), tax cuts (a short term win with a demo. House) and rejuvenating America's confidence (a win). More than that I don't expect from a mere politician.
Sorry that you've drunk the Rudy McRomney koolaid.
Nah, I like to think of it as the Ronald Reagan Reality Juice!
Yeah. The followers of Jim Jones thought it was grape, too.
....has more in common with these two liberal men.......
..... then he ever had in common with this conservative man.....
Sounds about right.
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.