Posted on 08/25/2010 5:26:17 AM PDT by JohnnyBibs
There are one million and one “Reagan Republicans“¸ but where are the “Lincoln Republicans“?
7:21 pm-est, Tuesday, August 24, 2010 in the year of JESUS CHRIST ALMIGHTY!
by,
Daniel Benjamin Orris of Pennsylvania
When I heard a quote this evening of a political candidate calling himself a “Reagan Republican“, I was reminded of that now common phrase used more as political subterfuge or chicanery, rather than containing any genuine meaning.
The unfortunate reality is, it seems, many otherwise Conservative voters are being deceived into supporting moderate Republicans who appeal to the Tea Party by using phrases such as “Reagan Republican“ and now near hollow planks like “smaller government“ and “less taxes“; akin to what happened in Massachusetts with the deceptive Rep. Scott Brown.
These and many other phrases and words have lost their meaning, some never even having an honest meaning to begin with.
Unfortunately, the late former President Ronald Reagan has become the go-to figure of moderate Republicans who employ the “Reagan Republican“ title in an attempt to gain popularity among Conservatives, fellow moderate Republicans and Tea Parties.
His face is seen on tee shirts, bumper stickers and an assortment of other novelty items.
Ronald Reagan was considerably the best president of the 20th Century, but in my opinion not the best Republican president.
The designation of “Best Republican President“ is reserved for the first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln.
Abraham Lincoln seems to be a forgotten figure.
The utmost of all post-founding U.S. presidents, Abraham Lincoln fought for a national end to slavery, acknowledged the Christian heritage of the U.S.A. and began a new era of civil rights that only ended when the Democrats regained control of congress almost two-decades later!
In my opinion, it seems honorable men such as Abraham Lincoln, Alexander Hamilton, Fisher Ames and even George Washington are being forgotten by Americans who choose to remember a more recent political figure, Ronald Reagan.
The term “Reagan Republican“ seems to have come to represent a moderate Republican than anything Ronald Reagan stood for.
Nevertheless, if presented with a choice, I would rather vote for a “Lincoln Republican“ than a “Reagan Republican“; even if they are both true to their name.
Without disrespecting Ronald Reagan, Abraham Lincoln was a better president; he did more for this country.
Conservatism in the United States Of America is still a ways away from being near to that of our fore-fathers, I contribute that to the lack of genuine Conservative leadership and organizations.
Without a doubt in my mind, two of the most popular icons for Conservatives and Republicans in the U.S.A., Fox News & the Tea Party along with individual “leaders“ being Sarah Palin & Ann Coulter among others, are really destructive moderate Republicans that humiliate the party name.
However, I believe if Conservatives and Republicans in this country are gave a choice between so-called “Reagan Republicans“ and “Lincoln Republicans“ (meaning genuine Constitionalists instead of moderate Republicans), the latter will be chosen.
Sadly, it appears that the U.S.A. will have to wait at least another election year until “Lincoln Republicans“ begin to appear on a mainstream level.
As we all should, I Praise and Thank JESUS CHRIST ALMIGHTY LORD GOD and SAVIOR! May HE Bless these United States Of America!
Sincerely,
Daniel Benjamin Orris of Pennsylvania
11:08 pm-est, Tuesday, August 24, 2010 in the year of JESUS CHRIST ALMIGHTY!
A republic held together at the point of a gun isn't much of a republic.
How is it a state right to be allowed to succeed(sic) from the Union?
The USC is totally silent on secession. If you read what was written at the time, any no out clause for the states would have made the USC DOA, and would have never been ratified by the states. There are some misguided fools around here that would argue the opposite is true, I am not buying though.
The Civil War was never about states rights, it was about a rebellion trying to keep slavery!
Secession is not an act of war, only a fascist war pig and statist piece of crap jerkface would think that way. Not that you would think like that :)
Take away, from the USA, the South in the 19th century and by the end of the 20th century the USA would be a totally socialist, if not communist country. An independent South would be a conservative country, to argue otherwise is to declare your historic incompetence.
But it was ratified, and without any "no out clause for the states" whatever the hell that is supposed to mean.
and to argue for it is to declare your hysterical incompetence lol
In my opinion this is an unnecessarily divisive thread. It started with a question that baited old regional mistrusts that should have long since been buried. What followed was the same old arguments that have existed for the past 120 years. Some (not named) spoke of "Southern" Republicans as if they were Neanderthals and throwbacks to the dark ages. WHY? We have enough current real enemies to occupy our time without such nonsense. Lets end this now.
Bombarding a fort is an act of war, only a fascist war pig and totalitarian piece of crap jerkface would think otherwise.
And under the precedents set by Jeff Davis in the 19th century, an independent confederacy by the end of the 20th century would be a totalitarian police state with a socialistic economy and a society most likely resembling South Africa at the height of apartheid. To declare otherwise shows an abysmal lack of historical knowledge of the Davis regime and the policies he enacted.
Your choice of ‘respondees’ is interesting. Why did you choose us and not central_va or colonel mosby (for example)? There is nothing divisive about the original thread. It was complementary of one of our most revered presidents. It didn’t rub noses of the confederates or the neo-confederates.
A couple of years ago I would have agreed with your POV. There are age old prejudices that are better buried. But that was before I met up with the Lost Cause Losers who wish fervently to destroy this nation.
You are right in that we have bigger fish to fry, but part of that is getting our own house in order and that will entail driving out the agitators, anarchists, and arsonists.
So, after a year of leave, you decide to wade back into FR and gin up the debate about Lincoln?
High praise, indeed.
You were surprised??
There are some malcontents here who hold a visceral hatred of anything Lincoln. You have to know that February 12th is a day of mourning for them ;-)
They invariably swarm any thread that mentions his name and spreads their crap.
And there are a few of us that stand in opposition to them.
Sorry for tracking all over your thread ;-)
Dude, you really need to spend a bit more time reading FreeRepublic.
Agitators, anarchists, and arsonists? That sounds like the Leftie cretin we are in battle with. Don't see any of that on this thread.
No, I guess you wouldn’t...
These Civil War threads have grown old so I will say this and nothing else: There were numerous reasons for Southern secession, but the reason the war started was Lincoln’s invasion of Virginia. Lincoln started the war, and Lincoln republicans are all over the place today. We call them Rhinos.
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.