>>>>>How artfully you change the subject ... I have my facts very straight....
Artfully? Me? I didn't raise the issue of Richard Schweiker, YOU DID! I didn't attempt to change the subject either, YOU DID! And on top of that, you got your facts wrong about Schweiker. Period!
>>>>>Reagan’s selection of Schweiker (who would be classified as a RINO by today’s standards) was considered a betrayal by conservatives in 1976, even more than Palin’s is, becasue Palin is.
For what its worth, I didn't see Reagan's choice of Schweiker as a betrayal in 1976. And I don't see Palin's endorsement of McCain as a betrayal either. There are some FReepers today, who consider Reagan a Rino by todays standards and by yesterdays standards too. LOL I don't pay attention to that BS.
The truth is, Schweiker started his political rebirth about the time Reagan chose him to be his running mate. Schweiker's Pro-Life credentials were always rock solid. His last 5 years in the Senate, saw Schweiker evolve from a moderate Republican to a pretty reliable conservative Republican, as evident from his ACU ratings.
Some conservatives weren't always satisfied with Reagan. So be it. That included Jesse Helms and Richard Viguerie. BFD! Today, Viguerie is viewed as a nut job. Which is really what he was back in the 1970`s. Sort of like the nut job Ron Paul. Paul supported Reagan in the 1970`s, but by 1988 called Reagan, a "failure".
>>>>>But on this comparison, the Gipper comes off worse than the Governor. and those are the facts whether you like them or not.
Stop the revisionism! You're so far off base, its pathetic. Reagan's choice of Schweiker didn't hurt him at all. After all, Reagan almost beat a sitting US President for the GOP nomination in 1976. An historic event of the first magnitude.
Like I told you the other day. Palin may be a Reagan conservative, but comparing her to Reagan or criticizing Reagan to make Palin look better, does her a disservice. Let Palin be Palin and let the cards fall where they may. What are you afraid of?
“Looks like I struck raw nerve.”
You struck nothing but the air. The fact is that you made a statement about Palin’sensorsement of McCain as being a “black mark”. I simply identified one of Reagan’s flawed decisions (which led many to question his conservative bona fides) and you treed to paint it as a virtue. I lived through that. I was for Reagan long before you were, I’ll wager...BDVD, if you get my meaning. Calling yourself Reagan Man doesn’t make you the arbiter of all things Reagan. You don’t know what you are talking about with Schweiker. Reagan probably alienated enough delegates in the Mississippi and Louisiana delegations with the Schweiker announcement that it actually COST him the nomination. It was wildly unpopular with conservatives and if you don’t know that you either weren’t paying attention when it happened and only read about it after the fact or you are too young to have lived through it.
“Some conservatives weren’t always satisfied with Reagan. So be it. That included Jesse Helms..”
Huh? Against you don’t know your history. Let me help you with the “Reader’s Digest version:
“Defying expectations, Ford narrowly defeated Reagan in the New Hampshire primary, and then proceeded to beat Reagan in the Florida and Illinois primaries by comfortable margins. By the time of the North Carolina primary in March 1976, Reagan’s campaign was nearly out of money, and it was widely believed that another defeat would force Reagan to quit the race. However, assisted by the powerful political organization of right-wing U.S. Senator Jesse Helms, Reagan upset Ford in North Carolina and then proceeded to win a string of impressive victories, including Texas, where he won all 100 delegates.”
Helms, far from not being satisfied with Reagan, SAVED him in North Carolina. He was one of his two Reaganites in the U.S. Senate at this time. And the pick alienated Helms, caused a huge backlash at the Convention, quite possibly cost him the nomination and in any event did nothing to help him. It was ill-conceived, and the only good thing about it is that it did him no lasting harm. It was apolitical mistake.
“After all, Reagan almost beat a sitting US President for the GOP nomination in 1976. An historic event of the first magnitude.”
Really? I know. I helped him. Also in 1980. In fact, Reagan was favored to beat Ford in the 1976 primaries and his losses in Iowa and NH led to a string of defeats that almost led to his withdrawal (which would have meant political oblivion for him and some other screen name for you, buckeroo.). But old Jesse, who was never satisgfied with him, saved the day.
“Stop the revisionism”
I have no idea what you are talking about. I don’t think you do, either. Reagan made a calculated political gamble in picking Schweiker, who was a LIBERAL in 1976. It was a compromise that alienated some of his base and did him no good. Palin, on the other hand, endorsed McCain BEFORE Hayworth ever got in the race and she had what most rational people would agree was a obligation to him. Ergo, I think her motives in the McCain imbroglio were purer and less tainted by politics than were Reagan’s in the Schweiker fiasco.
“Let Palin be Palin and let the cards fall where they may. What are you afraid of?”
Listen. Palin can take care of herself. She does not need me or even Rush to defend her. Conversely, Reagan does not need you to defend him. His legacy can take care of itself. I have been a supporter of his for over 40 years, and he was the greatest President of the 20th Century and one of the three greatest of all time. But he made a mistake with the Schweiker gambit, which was not even Reagan’s idea but was foisted on him by John Sears, his campign manager, who was no conservative
From Time:
“By persuading Reagan to announce that Pennsylvania Senator Richard Schweiker was his choice as running mate, Sears confused the Republican delegate picture sufficiently to stanch the flow of support to Ford and keep Reagan alive. But the move—by outraging some conservatives—may also have guaranteed Ford’s nomination. Whether Sears’ greatest gamble was shrewd or foolhardy will not be entirely clear until after the Republican presidential nominee is selected next week.”
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,914525,00.html
(BTW, in case you did not know it-since you apparently don’t know a lot about Reagan- Sears was a big time RINO who almost cost Reagan the 1980 nomination with his mushiness and bad tactical decisions in Iowa, and purges of Lyn Nofziger, Deaver and finally Ed Meese, at which point Reagan fired him and overcame his early loss (engineered by Sears) in Iowa and won NH and the nomination). Had Reagan continued to pursue iterations of the Schweiker strategy in 1980, as confected by John Sears, he might very well have lost the 1980 nomination.