Skip to comments.Reagan's party no more
Posted on 05/15/2012 12:32:50 PM PDT by presidio9
President Obama caused a minor stir last month in a speech at the Associated Press luncheon, when he argued, "Ronald Reagan ... could not get through a Republican primary today."
This sparked some worthwhile discussion, but I've been especially struck by the number of Republicans who agree with the argument.
The Republican Party has drifted so far to the right and become so partisan in recent years that President Ronald Reagan wouldn't even want to be a part of it, former Nebraska GOP senator Chuck Hagel told The Cable.
"Reagan would be stunned by the party today," Hagel said in a long interview in his office at Georgetown University, where he now teaches. He also serves as co-chair of President Barack Obama's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board.
Reagan wanted to do away with nuclear weapons, raised taxes, made deals with congressional Democrats, sought compromises and consensus to fix problems, and surrounded himself with moderates as well as Republican hard-liners, Hagel noted. None of that is characterized by the current GOP leadership, he said.
Hagel added that there were similar divisions in the early 1950s between Eisenhower Republicans and GOP extremists like Joe McCarthy, but the difference is, in 2012, "the extremists are winning."
Remember, Hagel's voting record in the Senate wasn't exactly Olympia Snowe's -- this guy's a conservative from a reliably-"red" state. And yet, he believes Reagan "wouldn't identify with this party."
A few weeks ago, former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman (R) said the same thing. What's more, Mike Huckabee said a year ago, "Ronald Reagan would have a very difficult, if not impossible, time being nominated in this atmosphere of the Republican Party." Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) had a nearly identical take in 2010, arguing Reagan "would have a hard time getting elected
(Excerpt) Read more at maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com ...
That's true. Reagan is far too conservative for today's Republican Party. The elite, which foamed at the mouth to defeat him in 1980, would completely ostracize him today.
They'd say Mutt Romney was 'more electable'.
Hagel was never a member of the party of Reagan. A RINO always.
Capitulation is in the air over on the dark side.
is = was.
Though, come to think of it, even deceased Ronaldus Magnus is still more conservative than Romney.
I forget, are there any Republican primaries left where only registered Republicans get to vote?
Palin, like Reagan, “made deals with congressional Democrats, sought compromises and consensus to fix problems, and surrounded himself with moderates as well as Republican hard-liners.” So why is Palin supported and the Republicans quoted in the article not supported by the grassroots of the Republican Party.
The difference is that while both Reagan and Palin were willing to make deals and compromise, they both had core beliefs and goals that they would not compromise.
In other words, compromise for Reagan and Palin is a means to a goal. To the RINOsm compromise is the goal.
Reagan wasn’t sneaky and underhanded enough for the likes of Romney.
Chuck Hagel is a goof, and operated from the Arlen Specter wing of the Capitol. It a tiny wing with locked door and soft, white padding on the walls, for the record. George Voinovich was once seen there as well, accompanied by that pair of Pine Tree State loons.
Reagan wouldn't stand a primary chance in Hell.
JFK could never be nominated by today’s Democratic Party. He was much too fiscally conservative and a strong anti-communist.
About what you can expect from PMSNBC.
The party in Reagan’s time had moderate/liberal backstabbing republicans like Packwood, Specter, Weiker, Heinz, etc. who hated conservatives and their influence. Specter said he wasn’t voting for Bork and all the others hid behind his filthy skirt.
Good riddance to people who believe in liberalism light, who vote for every appropriation increase, tax increase, and debt ceiling increase.
I’m waiting for a companion piece to be written about how extreme today’s Democrats are.
I’m old enough to remember a time when a significant percentage of elected Democrats loved America and hated Communism. Nowadays they’re an endangered species. The entire party has shifted so far to the left that the list of candidates endorsed by the Communist Party is pretty much indistinguishable from the list of Democrat candidates.
If it’s decided to create a new party that would phase out the RINO Elitist Party I’d hope it would be the Founders Party. The name says it all.
This was that LAST good US Senator from Nebraska:
EVERYONE since has been First Class Squishes and RINOs!
You forget that many of the “principled conservatives” here that you mock and claim would not vote for Reagan have already done just that, they prove you ridiculously wrong by having already enthusiastically voting for him twice.
Some of us loved him so much that we went back into the military because of him, or enlisted for the first time.
Romney did not vote for him, he changed his party registration, and did not support Reagan, “principled conservative freepers” did support Reagan, and still do as Romney attacks him and his legacy.
It wasn't Reagan's Party before he was elected President either.
You and I must not have known the same Ronald Reagan.
The good news...someday Chuck Hagel will be dead and we won’t have to listen to his ignorant rambling any more.
Hagel is a complete failure and jackass, and is either lying or completely insane. Ronald Reagan wanted to shut down entire departments. He waged a gigantic buildup of military weapons and nuclear power. He cut taxes dramatically. Idiots like Hagel are too stupid to realize when Reagan went to the table to discuss nuclear cuts, it was to gain negotiation leverage...not to disarm ourselves against a communist USSR. When he ultimately agreed to the Democrat House leadership to raise taxes slightly (a tiny percentage of his original cuts), it was in exchange for promised spending cuts.
Hagel, Simpson, Spector and the rest are some of the most damaging figure in modern political history. Add losers like McCain in the mix, and you’ll quickly see the source of most of our problems in getting good legislation in place.
Blah, blah, blah. NEXT!!!
There is a joke back home.
If you are elected to congress, it is because we can’t hang people like you anymore.
” Hagel added that there were similar divisions in the early 1950s between Eisenhower Republicans and GOP extremists like Joe McCarthy, but the difference is, in 2012, “the extremists are winning.”
Reagan was the real RINO.
” That’s true. Reagan is far too conservative for today’s Republican Party. The elite, which foamed at the mouth to defeat him in 1980, would completely ostracize him today. “
The RINOS control the party. Oh yeah, they were a force in Reagan’s time, but not in complete control like now.
But I suspect the reason Republicans have had so much trouble is that there isn't really a candidate of Reagan's stature and abilities out there. If there were, he or she would prevail over the critics and become the nominee.
The Left, and in particular their Media toadies, learned a hard lesson with Reagan. They laughed him off and did not take him seriously until one day he snuck under their radar and actually won.
They are determined not to let that happen again. Hence the collective head-stomping of Sarah Palin early and often.
Hagel is on Crack. I remember Reagan. I do not believe any of our primary contenders were the Conservatives Reagan was.
He ws both a moral and a fiscal conservative. And he was principle-driven not pragmatic in his core beliefs.
The lefties absolutely despised him.
Reagan would say, "OK, I'll sign off on that!"
Today, the Democrats say, "Let's go ten miles toward statism." And the GOP responds, "No, five miles worth of statism is all we'll vote for."
So five miles worth of statism is what we get.
That's the difference between compromises that help and compromises that harm.
Mark Levin said it yesterday and I totally agree - Reagan would win the nomination in a landslide if he ran today. The GOPe would be having seizures over it too.
BS, Hagel makes Lugar look conservative.
Reagan might be stunned at today’s GOP, but not because it’s too “partisan.”
His disbelief would be at how squishy it’s gone over the years.
GD Republican Leadership better get off the dime and reel these foolish Trotsky-RINO aka Dead Whigs in or the whole damn RINO Party will be torched!
” BS, Hagel makes Lugar look conservative.”
Good response Ansell, I voted for Reagan 2 times and would recognize his principled positions today.
Nobody will ever convince me Chuck Hagel was anything but a mole for the Left to use whenever they need a Republican to attack other Republicans. He sold us out every time he got the chance and continues to make himself available to the Rats.
” Nobody will ever convince me Chuck Hagel was anything but a mole for the Left ..”
In fact, both parties have gone far to the Left in recent decades, both in fiscal and social terms. The national debt was less than 1 trillion when Reagan was elected. He was forced to compromise with Democrats often but always made it clear that he stood for limited government.
Hagel makes Obama look conservative.
Well, the problem wasn’t with Reagan, but is with the GOP today.
Folks do we care what MSNBC saya about anything?
“Im old enough to remember a time when a significant percentage of elected Democrats loved America and hated Communism.”
Those were mostly southern Democrats, although Sam Stratton of New York was certainly one, who combined with the conservative wing of the GOP to form the Conservative coalition that dominated Congress from the late 1930s to the mid 1960s.
As the Democrat Party moved left during and after Lyndon Johnson their numbers began to dwindle and during the Reagan years a number of them switched parties.
Reagan actually had core values that he truly believed in as opposed to the Republican party elites today who lust for power only for the sake of the perks & privileges.
They will not fight for what is right because to do so might “offend “ some democrats who I truly believe have not been loyal to this nation for decades .
Does Joe six pack believe in the glories & joys of socialism that the Democrat party elite do? I doubt that, but he is lied to by not only the mainstream media but his party leadership as well & the GOP is to lazy to fight to tell the truth about the party of SLAVERY,SOCIALISM & SODOMY!!!
He was apparently a pro-lifer as a senator and he served quite honorably in Vietnam but he is, at best, a moderate squishball and a tower of jello on foreign policy which is why he is whoring as a foreign policy adviser to Obozo. Lumping him in with Huntsman, Huckabee and Light in the Loafers Graham is just about right.
As to his non-existent rationality, he apparently imagines that the soulless and unprincipled Romney is to Reagan's right. That shows what a fantasy world Hagel inhabits.
HAGEL STRIKES AGAIN: Two years after he made it clear he preferred Barack Obama for President to his fellow Republican and Vietnam War veteran John McCain, former Sen. Chuck Hagel (R.-Neb.) demonstrated once again why conservatives have been distrustful of him. Last week, Hagel endorsed arch-leftist Rep. Joe Sestak (D.-Pa.) in his bid for the U.S. Senate against the Republican nominee, solidly conservative former Rep. Pat Toomey. Hagel then campaigned with Sestak throughout the Keystone State. Recalling how he has known Sestak since they traveled to Iraq together in April 2007, Hagel hailed the two-term congressman as a courageous and independent thinker. Most observers in and out of Pennsylvania were left wondering what aside from their opposition to the Iraq War Hagel (lifetime American Conservative Union rating: 85%) had in common with Sestak (lifetime ACU rating: 0%). Responding to Hagels endorsement of Sestak, Toomey told reporters that if Joe Sestak is looking for an out-of-state visitor who best reflects his voting record, he ought to invite Nancy Pelosi. Noting that Hagel now serves as co-chairman of Obamas Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, former Rep. Hal Daub, a one-time mayor of Omaha, Neb., and a past Republican national committeeman, told HUMAN EVENTS: Sen. Hagel is a good friend but hes marching to the beat of a different political drummer. Hes clearly working to ingratiate himself with the Obama Administration in pursuit of further job potential. Many of his other friends here look at who hes supporting and would like to know who the real Chuck Hagel is.
As to Reagan signing a permissive abortion bill, that is not analogous to Romney. Reagan sincerely repented and personally circulated petitions for an ill-fated initiative to repeal said law as soon as, within a year, he was shocked at the staggering number of California's "legal" baby murders under that law. He also addressed the March for Life every year as POTUS, wrote an entire book arguing persuasively for ending abortion and, once he changed back to civilization's view, he never wavered for a second for the rest of his life. Romney, in 2006, AFTER he claims falsely to have become pro-life in 2005, made subsidy of $50 abortions MANDATORY for religious employers, put Planned Barrenhood on the Board of Romneycare to protect its interests, and then stuck his finger in the National Republican wind and continued lying in his claim to be pro-life.
As a lawyer, I represented more than a thousand arrested pro-lifers. Neither I nor they had any problem with Ronaldus Maximus and every one of them aware of Romney despised Romney. I must say that I am amazed at those who schlep for Romney telling us who know better what Reagan would think or do. You can bet it would not be what spineless Chuckie Hagel or MSNBC imagine.
If the GOP wants our votes, it da*n well better EARN them the old-fashioned way by nominating acceptable candidates and NOT by allowing anonymous shadowy corruptocrats of Wall Street to buy the POTUS nomination for leftist trash like Romney. No exceptions.