Big difference here. Ronald Reagan loved this country. These guys don't.
The usual drivel by a NYT writer. Can anyone imagine the Leftist wusses, Robbins or Baldwin, doing what Ronald Reagan did that night...or reviving a failing economy without massive bailouts or defeating the Soviet Union without going to war?
In spite of these troubled financial times at the Old Gray Has-Been, they really should employ a good psychiatrist for the staff. Writing such as this is embarrassing.
Yep, that’s the Reagan everyone knew! Able to leap tall buildings in a single bound. :)
LLS
Reagan was a model populist because he was a smart populist, and because the liberals who disdained him looked like fools in the end.
What a bunch of twaddle!
Another example of the Left’s absolute fear of Sarah Palin. They know she is coming and will do anything to stop her
The author misconceives the cancer which is currently afflicting the Republican Party. Because he is a liberal his kind are energized by a belief that they can and should order the world in accordance with their schemes to lead us to the promised land where their rationality will do away with the superstitions of the right and permit the essential goodness of man to bloom under their husbandry. And that, of course, is why the left places such public stock in its alleged "intellectualism." This is why all Democrat presidents have to be geniuses and all Republicans are morons -because, this time, with the right liberal genius at the controls their scheme will actually work.
The problem for America and therefore the problem for the Republican Party is not a want of brains but a want of courage to preserve our freedom. Republicans, whether newly revealed Rinos like Peggy Noonan or crusty old conservatives like Mitch McConnell have abandoned the fight for freedom. Our author thinks that Republicans are animated out of a "populist" motive because that description carries so much negative baggage. It is not populism, which is rank manipulation of society by a different group by different means, which conservatives seek, it is liberty.
There is really no philosophical conflict between cerebral conservatives like William F. Buckley and trench fighters like Tom DeLay provided both keep clear that they are striving for freedom from the likes of this author. Sarah Palin is an authentic voice of conservatism which needs to master a few forensic skills to be nationally attractive. But she will never be a successful national figure merely as a populist no matter how glib she becomes.
The road for conservatives to the promised land is as clear for us as the needle pointing straight to the poll: we must defend America against the insatiable appetite of the Obama administration to make vassals of us all for our own good. We must defend the individual, that is our individual liberties, from the state.
It is not intellectual rigor which we lack but courage.
For what it’s worth...
I recently bought the Audio version and all I can say is you won’t be disappointed in the book.
HEHE-—small manhattan paper-—HEHEHE that is funny.
Yes, Bill Buckley was a great man with a great mind and did Yale proud. On the other hand, I remember when conservative intellectuals, certainly Mr. Buckley, didn’t use to look down upon politicians or their own colleagues as uncouth hicks just because they weren’t Ivy Leaguers, Seven Sisters alumnae, or at least Eastern college alums. The longer we go, the more I wonder if Ronald Reagan would ever have had a chance to be Ronald the Great had he had to deal with today’s conservative commentariat. “Eureka College, Muffy? Where’s that?”