Posted on 02/21/2014 6:02:26 PM PST by Innovative
Ronald Reagan on the importance of political compromise (in his own words)
An American Life (his autobiography) | 8/7/03 | Ronald Reagan
Posted on 8/7/2003 2:05:04 PM by Diddle E. Squat
"When I began entering into the give and take of legislative bargaining in Sacramento, a lot of the most radical conservatives who had supported me during the election didn't like it.
"Compromise" was a dirty word to them and they wouldn't face the fact that we couldn't get all of what we wanted today. They wanted all or nothing and they wanted it all at once. If you don't get it all, some said, don't take anything.
"I'd learned while negotiating union contracts that you seldom got everything you asked for. And I agreed with FDR, who said in 1933: 'I have no expectations of making a hit every time I come to bat. What I seek is the highest possible batting average.'
"If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, and that's what I told these radical conservatives who never got used to it.
You continue posting gibberish, even ramblings about obscure third parties, why not just spit out what you want to say.
It is clear that you want to hammer conservatives and promote Romney, why not just do it in a clear manner?
What “plan” of mine are you rambling about, what is the “bumped” that you can’t explain.
Why are you rambling about me having a “plan” and “bitching about not having anyone to vote for”, what posts are you getting this from?
OK, one last time to ensure we understand each other.
I never said conservatives are anti Reagan. I intimated that there are those on FR who wouldn't vote for Reagan because they would find some small tort or faux pas that made him "unclean in their eyes. Much like some immediately started bad-mouthing Walker and Palin for what some MSM article "reported" that they might have said. They focus so much on personal key issues that they lose sight of the big picture.
The "gibberish" about obscure third parties came directly from otherwise sane sounding FReepers during the last Presidential election - once again they lost sight of the big picture and even with Obama as the only other choice, split away from Romney because their principles made it preferable to allow Obama a second term that to vote for a RINO. Thus the Virgil Goode reference. I understand their attitude, but I still think it was stupid to pave the way for Obama than to grit teeth and vote for "the lesser". Much as I hate RINOs as much as anyone, I'm pragmatic enough to believe that if we had managed to get bat-shit-crazy McCain elected the first time, things would not be nearly as hosed as they are now - hosed for sure, but Obama Care and a lot of the rest wouldn't have gone over so steep a cliff.
I do not want to hammer conservatives and promote Romney. I hate that he was the last one standing when the smoke cleared. Perry/Cain/Gingrich etc., would have all been preferable choices. I voted Romney because I had no doubt that the damage would escalate under a second-term Obama.
When I mention a plan to those I am engaged with it's because they seem to have a solid conception of what is wrong with the system and the candidates we usually end up with. They usually mention some principles and a refusal to vote for any more tainted candidates, no matter what, and seem to think that the worse we allow it to get by not doing everything we can to give an Obama a second shot (I can understand the first time because McCain is literally insane, but Palin would have had the proverbial foot in the door) the more likely things will turn around. I believe we are at a tipping point where it might take rivers of blood to recoup our country if we don't start weeding the worst of them out even if it does entail holding our noses for a few RINOs.
The reason I bitch about folks not having a "plan" is that they usually seem so focused on not voting for another RINO, ever, that they don't seem to be pondering much on the ramifications of upholding their principles. I think we need to put all the support 9voice/time/energy/money) we can to bolster the real conservatives prior to elections. If our efforts fail to get the best candidates on the ticket, then do what it takes to keep a Dim from holding/taking a seat. Even though most RINOs stab us in the eye and are totally complicit in the left-wing philosophies, they occasionally break from the left and can at least retard some of the damage. They also focus so hard on homosexual/abortion issues as a litmus that they lose sight of the cause of the problems by targeting the symptoms.
To wrap it up: I believe that we need more conservatives like Cruz and Lee and Walker, etc., and it would be great if Palin would show up again as a candidate. I hate most of the choices we end p with, but I think we should weigh each and every election and the candidates and do whatever it takes to make even the smallest positive/not-so-bad choices. The Left has been relentless for over half a century and got where they are because they took everything they could get down to fractions of an inch. That's what got them to the point where they have no fear about making moves to crush Freedom - they garnered the power a hair at a time. If we don't use similar tactics and support anyone that's not them (once that someone is the only choice left) we will not recover. That's why Ikeep asking about a "plan" - I want to know if just not supporting anyone but a true conservative is the extent of it, or if they are actually considering what the ramifications of their strategy. If they have a rationale that makes sense, I might adopt their strategy. If they have no earthly clue about how their strategy will end up with real-world positive results, then I wonder what thought processes went into developing their strategy. A plan can't be based on what it doesn't do (elect another RINO) if it isn't also based on what it does do (chip away at the commies that are killing us).
Hope that helps. Sorry about letting it degenerate.
As long and rambling and leaky for Romney as that was, just go back to you agreeing with the original poster and starting with exactly what I challenged you on.
Read post 47, then post 48, and then continue on.
The problem with the GOP these days is it lacks good ideas, and is further lacking in the art of persuasion. Compromise is fine once you’ve taken your victories, but it’s nothing but loser’s consolation when you’ve got no victories. Using Reagan’s analogy, the only time the GOP gets on base these days is when it gets four balls, or hit by the pitcher.
Jim, I don’t think that these people talk to people that you and I talk to.
I have several offensive stickers on my truck and people ask me who are you for: Cruz or Paul. There is something going on, What, I don’t know.
And Reagan was not suggesting we compromise on our founding principles. He might compromise on taxes or political issues, but not on freedom. He built a coalition of voters by asking them to come his way so he could win in the long run on his terms.
His strategy: We win, they lose.
The rest is history.
Jim: I live in Eastern NH the focus is winning local races and State wide races. I was delivering some of my offensive bumper stickers to a City and County Republican Leader.
We were talking about Scott Brown, Rat Light. He gave me a Bob Smith sticker, this race could get interesting.
Read the bold words (obviously, emphasis mine).
The problem with today's GOP-E, and with today's GOP-E leadership, is that they are trying to purge those who are 'fighting for the rest later'. We keep getting told we can't fight because we only control the House. After November we'll be told we can't fight because we don't have the White House. After 2016 we'll be told we can't fight because since we didn't fight in 2010, 2012 or 2014 we lost influence so fighting is useless.
Reagan never suggested giving up, and I think he'd strongly identify with today's Tea Party. Today's Republican Party does nothing of the sort.
It all comes down to a simple choice, Smith said: ‘‘Sacrifice your freedoms on the altar of the central planners in Washington, or reclaim your liberties and freedoms under our Constitution.’’
Woo hoo!!
Go, Bob, GO!!
Jim Robinson to me, Innovative: “Ronald Reagan was a great man. Not a surrender monkey like you. KMA!!”
Ronald Reagan was indeed a great man and a great president.
I don’t quite understand why you were and are attacking me for posting an exact quote by him.
Ronald Reagan Quote
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3125698/posts
“”When I began entering into the give and take of legislative bargaining in Sacramento, a lot of the most radical conservatives who had supported me during the election didn’t like it.
“Compromise” was a dirty word to them and they wouldn’t face the fact that we couldn’t get all of what we wanted today. They wanted all or nothing and they wanted it all at once. If you don’t get it all, some said, don’t take anything.
“I’d learned while negotiating union contracts that you seldom got everything you asked for. And I agreed with FDR, who said in 1933: ‘I have no expectations of making a hit every time I come to bat. What I seek is the highest possible batting average.’
“If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, and that’s what I told these radical conservatives who never got used to it.”
I think most of us here, have the same goals, some of us
think that putting up good candidates that can actually win, is important — some, as I said in an earlier post on this thread prefer to lose the elections and whine afterwards, and congratulate themselves on their “purity”. That’s how we got Clinton twice and Obama twice.
Because, being the true blue RINO you are, you’re trying to twist his quote your way. Reagan was not a surrender monkey. He was good at getting people to go his way. He stood fast for freedom. Ask Gorby.
Do we have a “Reagan” out there somewhere? If so, I would like to know. I’m guessing that if we do, with someone who can “pull” across parties - then you would be voting for him, too ... right?
First off, the number of people that actually run off and vote for a non factor like Virgil Goode is next to nothing. The Green Party got nearly 4 times the number of votes - and they were also an after thought. Yes, many people here were talking about voting for Virgil Goode, but not many folks elsewhere across the country did. On activist, grass roots, political sites like FR you are just going to get a higher percentage of people that insist on candidates that better represent them. And this is to be expected, afterall, that is the whole mission of conservatives willing to spend time talking politics. The general public pays about 1/100th the attention to this stuff as we do.
I think the core of this debate is this - some people, particularly the most ideological/partisan, feel their vote represents an affirmative endorsement of a candidate or set of ideas. Therefore if X candidate holds a view they find repugnant, they believe they can't vote for him or her under any circumstances. Most people on the other hand, view their vote as a choice, and basically believe as you do that wasting a vote on a 3rd party nobody that has zero chance to win is utterly silly.
Arguing with people who truly want to throw away their vote (I mean those who will really do it, not just the ones that threaten to do so out of anger that their candidate didn't win) is pointless, I've tried it now and again and you'll basically get nowhere because of what they believe their vote represents. In a general election to you, me and most people it's a choice, to those who feel different it is an affirmative endorsement. If you truly felt your vote meant you were actively supporting a social liberal Republican's position on abortion/gay marriage/etc in some urban mayoral race, you might think differently . If you view that social liberal Republican as the better choice between the lesser of two evils (better than the social liberal Democrat who is also an economic liberal and worse than the Republican on most of the issues), then you'll have no trouble casting that ballot. Most people will continue to see casting a ballot in a general election as just a choice between the only viable alternatives. In reality, the primaries are people's moment to cast an affirmative vote - and look how few people even turn out for them.
So long as our system is a winner take all 2 party system that allows no opportunity for coalition government, I do believe voting in a general election is simply not an affirmative endorsement of anything - it's just a choice between the only realistic options available. One of two people will become president under these circumstances. Even if they both suck, you are simply casting a ballot for the least bad option. In our system, that is pretty much what we are going to have to deal with in the vast majority of general elections. Reagan was the only good candidate for President in a general election in my lifetime, and I was too young to vote for him either time. So I, like yourself, and most other actual conservatives, are stuck voting against the Democrat by casting a ballot for the Republican (no matter how bad he/she is). Heck even Ron Paul, the LaRouchies, etc, have learned that our system mostly doesn't allow for 3rd party to have much success.
In the end, most people see it the way you do when it comes to NOT voting 3rd party no matter what. Just watch the election returns threads right here on FR. Most people will cheer whoever the Republican is to win, if for no other reason than to keep the Democrat out of office or give the further left party a black eye.
Along with the rest of what you wrote, I pray you are correct. Sometimes it seems like the nuts are out in full force, but I suppose it might be that they just become more noticeable to me. Thanks for the analysis.
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.