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
-SNIP-
(Excerpt) Read more at maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com ...
” Nobody will ever convince me Chuck Hagel was anything but a mole for the Left ..”
100%
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.
Replace it.
Folks do we care what MSNBC saya about anything?
“I’m 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 Hagel’s 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 Obama’s 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 he’s marching to the beat of a different political drummer. He’s clearly working to ingratiate himself with the Obama Administration in pursuit of further job potential. Many of his other friends here look at who he’s supporting and would like to know who the real Chuck Hagel is.”
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=38738
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.
So don’t vote for him. I really like elk.
On election night, one of them will probably be elected and one defeated. It does not much matter who is elected or defeated if those two are the choices. On election night, I will celebrate the defeat of the defeated and redouble my efforts to destroy the winner with other actual conservatives.
No "honeymoon" for either POS. The basic guideline is rule or ruin. Whether or not the elitist minihorde of Robamneyite financiers are delighted or disappointed by the fate of the "Bush tax cuts" on financial obsessives is of little difference to me. I only care about real issues. If the plutocrats get their taxes raised, then it will serve them right for buying the nomination for the Massachusetts trashbag. Maybe next time they will be hurting enough that they won't be able to afford the cost of destroying each and every actual Republican candidate seeking the nomination of whatever is left of the GOP. Poooooor spoiled babies!!!!!
Personally, I prefer thoroughly fileted corrupt plutocrats for lunch, preferably with lavish dousing in a nice bearnaise sauce. Then, for balance, I would feed the dog-eater Obozo to, ummmm, the dogs (if they have strong enough stomachs).
As to being “a mole for the left,” Hagel is as you say but, then again, so is Robamney.
There were disagreements, sure, but was it really hatred? Weicker was an onery SOB, but Reagan was able to work with Packwood to get his tax laws passed. Whatever Packwood thought about conservatives, I don't think it translated into a personal hatred for Ronald Reagan.
Reagan didn't let liberal Republicans get to him. For one thing, he could offset defections with support from moderate or conservative Democrats who were still in Congress. Also, those liberal or moderate Republican defectors didn't always bolt. For example, they might have been liberals on social issues, but willing to go along with Reagan on taxes or defense policy.
Nobody wants to see me stripped, I can assure you of that.
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.