Posted on 02/25/2015 10:01:01 AM PST by detective
When conservatives gather Thursday for their annual confab there will be homages to Ronald Reagan everywhere. He’ll be mentioned in speeches, he’ll show up as a life-size cardboard cutout, and on posters and buttons. The event’s big dinner is in his name.
At the Conservative Political Action Conference, Reagan is king. And the many Republicans vying to be president will work feverishly to align with him. But do they?
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
The more like Reagan a candidate is, the better.
JFK would be a liberal democrat, Reagan called him a Marxist, and the election of JFK was the end of America, his more radical agenda destroyed us.
You think that is what the attacker was saying?
There is more to the story than that.
Reagan grudgingly gave Amnesty on the promise from congress, including Democrats, that the border would be secured. So it was a compromise and it left a bad taste in his mouth. And in the end the Democrats screwed him and never secured the border. He later admitted it was one of the worst mistakes of his presidency.
As for abortion... exactly how was he supposed to stop it? He hated abortion, but that’s a matter of law decided by SCOTUS. Unlike Obama he recognized that he didn’t have the power to just unilaterally change law to suite his whims. There is a process and he respected that.
Stupid question. We don’t live in a vacuum. Issues change, people learn, and positions mature. The issues Ronald Reagan supported today would likely be different from the issues he supported 35 years ago. As those issues were different from the ones he supported 35 years before that.
The whole concept of comparing conservatives on a spectrum is a ruse designed to disable the opposition to liberalism. There are three essential characteristics to any elected conservative or non-liberal representative: 1) their positions; 2) the relative weight they place on each issue; 3) the doggedness with which they oppose liberal positions and liberal politicians. The spectrum of “conservatism” focuses only on the first characteristic when, in practice, it is the least important of the three. But what the spectrum does is allow those who nominally take the “conservative” positions to appear similar or even preferable to those that either don’t do anything about those positions, or refuse to oppose liberalism (or fascism, or any other variant of the left).
This is the secret to UKIP, and why UKIP succeeds where the Tea Party fails. By organizing around the third characteristic (100% commitment to opposing the EU, and to opposing the more egregious displays of the left), even if it means sacrificing on the first two points, they have created a unified, powerful opposition to the left.
I would much rather support a Rudy Giuliani — who is a street fighter when opposing the left, than a nominal conservative who says the right things but accomplishes nothing. Even though certain positions of Giuliani’s are liberal in and of themselves, there are two things I am certain of. He will in general oppose liberalism with every fiber of his being; and on those issues where he is “liberal”, he will not assign the same weight as issues where he finds common ground with other 100% committed anti-liberals. He is far more committed to the constitution, and to the values that made this country what it is, than 90% of nominally conservative GOPe types.
Obviously, Rudy is not a viable candidate nationally, and that wasn’t the point. The point is that liberalism will run roughshod over this country until we focus more on supporting those who truly oppose liberalism, and less on the conservative “scorecard”. Just like UKIP is doing. And in a manner wholly different than Republican voters have been doing thus far.
What matters about Ronald Reagan is that he was effective in opposing the left. His exact positions (or, worse yet, his “scorecard” results) aren’t particularly relevant. He was as committed to the constitution, and to American values, as anyone, and he was effective. That is what matters. Not some superficial rundown of issues.
excellent point...
No, but it’s what I’ve always said about Reagan. The Rockefeller Republicans hated him, and only acquiesced when he actually won....but once he left the White House, the Republicans reverted right back to their old form.
You are right, in the 1960s was Reagan known as a right winger, a hard core right winger, they called him "Ronnie Raygun".
Any chart that puts Rand Paul as the most conservative of that group has no chance of being correct. He belongs somewhere on the left side. The only black mark I remember about RR from his run in 1980 was allowing his advisers to sway him into signing a law allowing abortion if the pregnancy was a danger to the mother. He never saw how that loophole would become a barn door; a mistake he repeated on legalizing aliens as president.
The biggest black mark was his choice of VP.
Yes, he would. He also signed the FOPA of 1986.
bump
The media libs are desperately trying to control the Republican nomination and they're freaking out because it isn't working. It's actually getting pretty entertaining.
I do not know of a single person who says they consider Reagan a RINO. Can you name people who do?
Reagan was pro-life and appointed pro-life judges.
Reagan attempted to control Federal spending but was fought at every step. He instituted the Grace Commission which identified substantial savings. He also needed to rebuild the military which was underfunded by Carter and the Democrats. Had Reagan not been president spending would have increased more.
He agreed to the Simpson-Mazolli Act which was a mistake. He enforced border security far more than any president since.
I agree. When the powers that be forced that compromise on him, they set the stage for regaining the power Reagan took from them, and more.
You're an idiot if you believe that.
He did nothing to stop abortions.
You couldn't possibly be more wrong.
He did not veto tripling of federal spending in 8 years.
The ONLY people who say this are non-conservative liberals and libertarians.
He gave blanket and instantaneous amnesty to all illegals!
Total BS!
Reagan signed a bill that had huge bipartisan support (it would have almost certainly withstood a veto) that gave amnesty to SOME illegals and had measures to stop the influx of further illegals. It's not Reagan's fault that the provisions to stop illegals was ignored.
Today, he would be considered a first class RINO.
Put down the bong.
Reagan aggressively fought abortion and even wrote a book on abortion as the sitting president.
entropy12 is confusing him with Mitt Romney.
He would be thought of as a rino today?
It is today, and Reagan is the hero of conservatism.
entropy12, your pathetic lies remind me of Paul Begala, or Robert Reich. Telling too many lies at a rapid pace doesn’t work well at FR. Get a clue, then get a life.
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.