Posted on 11/10/2012 9:37:59 PM PST by oneprolifewoman
...Ronald Reagan was a lifelong optimist and an example of remarkable resilience especially in bad times. After Barry Goldwater went down to the greatest presidential defeat in American history to that point in 1964, Reagan, whose nationally televised speech was the one shining success in that campaign, was neither shaken no disheartened. Within two years he had won the governorship of California – and the rest is history. Reagan therefore would not have lost heart and despaired of conservative and patriotic principles, nor of America.He would have taken a good night’s sleep and got up in the morning eager to find new directions and new opportunities for the way ahead. Second, the conservative movement that Ronald Reagan created was generous and inclusive. Reagan welcomed brilliant African-American and Jewish intellectuals alike on to his team. President George W. Bush understood this generous, inclusive essential component of conservatism. I have been critical of Bush for many important things -- unnecessary wars, out of control spending, playing ultimately catastrophic games with keeping interest rates artificially low. But Bush 43, among other things, was highly successful in reaching out to Hispanic Americans. He knew and thought better of grassroots conservatives than assuming that they would never accept Hispanic, black or Jewish Americans in major positions. Romney lost a major opportunity when he refused to seriously consider Susana Martinez of New Mexico or Marco Rubio of Florida as his vice presidential running mate. Martinez in particular gave a superb speech at the Republican National Convention in Tampa and could have helped Romney enormously with women and Hispanics – two huge constituencies that he effectively chose to write off. George W. Bush did not make that mistake. Neither did Ronald Reagan.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Obama is NOT to the right of Nixon. That is ridiculous. Gay marriage, amnesty, free birth control, Obama -care
Reagan 30+ years ago had a mostly white mostly America who had generations born here before them that he had to win a majority of. That is not this country anymore.
This country has huge % of foreigners who are non-white who relate to O and came from other countries to join the white libs, and they have no idea what freedom or capitalism means.
If the GOP has any ideas they have yet to show evidence of that.
Oh, that hurts! You really know how to disrespect a wiseguy, gusty!
Seriously, I know what the conventional wisdom is about a third party. We're at or near the end of the line now, essentially starring into the economic and cultural abyss.
The GOP is not emotionally equipped to do what it takes to turn this thing around as quickly as it needs to be. Either they're afraid to ‘ruffle the feathers’ of the opposition, or are basically okay with where were headed.
This is just the way I see it. Many argue it's already too late and a collapse is coming in any event, so all this may well be moot.
Scott Walker, He is the only one I see with any promise.
As long as the R party keeps offering up losers like Mitt and deluding itself that it is winning we will continue to slide off the edge.
What would Reagan have done when he realized he couldn’t be elected to any state wide office in California?
We will never know . . .
The road to recovery will not be painless or peaceful.
There is no way to reason with Obamabots.
Rebuilding cannot begin until the collapse is complete and there is no more wealth for the moochers to mooch.
When the declining fderal revenue and the rising interest costs intersect we will be on the threshold of a new era for the moochers and grifters.
I don`t know for sure what Reagan would do, but it`d be entirely understandable if, in today`s rapidly declining Amerika, he`d go into a totally different line of business that`s unconnected to politics.
” Mr. Reagan would recognize the futility of trying to put the pantywaist GOP on a proper heading and jump ship to the Constitution Party. Thirty million would immediately follow, with the rest trickling in over a four year period. The result: Morning once again in America. “
and after 4 years without Reagan, it would become virtually indistinguishable from today’s GOP
“Then in 2016, the Democrats can only blame Obama and they will lose throughout the country from city to federal government. This country needs to get worse than Greece.”
LOL they will always find someone else to blame. Always.
They’ll just blame greedy evil companies for firing people and the evil greedy oil companies for raising prices.
Obama was just as wrong the day after the election as he was the day before or before the one in 2008. Reagan would have done what we all should do, use every opportunity to point out the disaster Obama is in the process of creating and never, ever let him get away with it or blame the wrong people.
Regan couldn’t win California now.
And Romney Was a better Debater than Reagan> I seen both of them. Takers have won, the cows are out of the barn and there is no getting it back.
I’m not much better, 8-5 going bacteria to Nixon.
We’ll never know because Reagan is dead.
It is one of history’s greatest tragedies that Reagan’s Republicans did not control Congress. His GRAND COMPROMISE with Tip O’Neill, that every RAT in Washington lauds as a model for bipartisanship, has contributed to our current financial crisis.
O’Neill agreed to lower the tax rates in exchange for Reagan’s agreeing to automatic inflation escalators on entitlements. Reagan wanted tax cuts and increases in military spending. Military spending actually subsided as a portion of the budget about 1984 as entitlement spending INCREASED. There was no way to get the spedning back under control again. This continued through Bush. Clinton could then raise taxes and claim the stimulative power of removing wealth from the private sector.
THOSE INCREASES IN ENTITLEMENTS ARE NOW BAKED IN AND ANY ATTEMPT TO REIN IN THE GROWTH OF EXPENDITURES IS CALLED A CUT!! The RATS demonize Republicans if they even threaten to reduce the RATE OF GROWTH in spending.
In 1986, O’Neill, with the elimination of many loopholes, raised the effective tax rates (while giving the appearance of lowering the rates!!) even HIGHER than they were in the early 80s with Bill Bradley’s TAX SIMPLIFICATION ACT. Reagan surely understood this and figured it was the best he could do.
Now, Reagan did win the COLD WAR, put the the economy in overdrive, strengthened the military and intelligence forces, while revenues to the treasury DOUBLED. The Reagan Economic Boom and COLD WAR premium provided the charlatan Clinton’s his supposed budget surplus.
However, we now have to deal with the exploding entitlement issue that has proven more intractable than the OLD SOVIET UNION. Reagan had to compromise. He had to reach across the aisle. He had to tell Irish jokes with a RAT.
Not sure what you mean by this. That a post-Reagan Constitution Party would mimic today's Republican Party?
If so you're saying that where the GOP is now is essentially the center of gravity where all major political entities would meander to, and our country as we've known it most of this century died with Ronald Reagan.
Is that a fair assessment of what you're driving at? IF not, can you elaborate further?
This is simple math.
3rd Parties are stupid ideas. They only give the Democrats more chances to win.
Idiotic FOX snoozer has no idea about Reagan or Conservatism or the fact that Romney was a LOSER FLIP-FLOPPER with all his hispanadering, hatred for Conservatives and Libertarians and lack of credible economic savy, stupidity of fighting for Islamic Freedom! Forget about FOX it is crap, worthless bunch of assplats!
Faux News always sucked, now they’re just as leftist as the rest of them.
I disagree with you, Reagan would have easily won because his campaign would have been totally different, you forget that being able to communicate his conservative message and inspire, and motivate, was what made Reagan such a winner.
Romney has always been a loser, 20 years of running for office and a single victory and a single term as a failed, liberal governor that couldn’t win reelection and left with 34% approval.
Romney despised Reagan, and now people are trying to hide his being such a loser in politics, by pretending that Reagan was just another Romney and that this would have been the same election regardless of who ran, because Romney is as good as Reagan.
Romney was everything that republicans disagree with, he was the anti-Reagan, he never should have been in republican politics in the first place (he abandoned it when it was the Reagan party) , much less as it’s presidential candidate.
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.