Oh? Tell that to the Conn. Dems who nominated THIS guy: 
Posted on 02/16/2007 8:30:44 AM PST by meg88
The GOP Should Dump Its Litmus Test By Michael Reagan FrontPageMagazine.com | February 16, 2007
The philosopher Diogenes is said to have wandered around ancient Greece holding a lantern and seeking to find an honest man.
My fellow Republicans, sans lanterns, are now wandering around the political landscape seeking to find the perfect Republican presidential candidate.
I don’t know if Diogenes ever found that honest man, but I do know that those Republicans are never going to find the perfect candidate, simply because he does not exist.
Some Republicans insist that the only perfect candidate would be a clone of my Dad, Ronald Reagan. Aside from the fact that there is no such thing, it’s important to recognize that Ronald Reagan, as he often admitted, was anything but perfect.
One of the criticisms about former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney focuses on his record concerning the abortion issue. We are told by the modern day Diogenes clones that he can’t be trusted to fight abortion because he once, more or less, supported a woman’s right to butcher her baby.
It may come as a surprise to these purists, but Ronald Reagan once supported abortion too. Yet nobody ever questioned his strong pro-life credentials after his conversion to Republicanism. They accepted his sincerity. Why can’t they accept Mitt Romney’s?
Romney’s record shows he should be totally acceptable to all conservatives, yet because of one dubious question concerning the validity of his conversion to the pro-life side, he is deemed unsuitable to carry the conservative banner.
The same is true of Rudy Giuliani. On every major issue, he is a solidly conservative and extraordinarily adept executive, but because he backs abortion and some form of gun control, America’s mayor -- the hero of 9/11 and the man who did the impossible by cleaning up New York -- is all but ruled out as a 2008 candidate.
Not one of the major candidates is free of some real or imagined flaw that offends some conservatives.
This is madness, and if it does not stop, the GOP is going to lose the presidential election in 2008. In the search for the perfect candidate we are going to end up with an imperfect candidate. Keep in mind the truism that agreement with someone on most issues and disagreement on others is seen as normal, but should you agree with someone on every single issue imaginable … well… to put it plainly, psychologists say you’re nuts.
I recently got a letter from a conservative Christian organization that asked me if the current GOP candidates are the best the Republican Party has to offer.
“Is it possible that GOP conservative ranks are this thin?” the letter writer asked. “Has the GOP nothing better to offer? Should not pro-family pro-life voters also want a low taxes and limited government candidate before they vigorously support him? Increased taxes and expanded government hurts everyone. Was Ronald Wilson Reagan an anomaly and did he represent the values of his party?
“These GOP candidates,” the letter instructed me, “are little better than Bob Dole, Gerald Ford, or [George] H.W. Bush. Did anyone notice they all lost?”
This makes me wonder if anybody can stand up to the litmus test these people are applying to candidates.
Ronald Reagan had one litmus test he applied to candidates. Were they Republicans? If they were he backed them all the way. He would let the party choose the candidate and he would support and vote for the candidate. He didn’t go sniffing around trying to find some flaw in their character or their past. Once nominated, they were his choice.
And nobody was more candid in admitting that he was anything but perfect than my Dad. He knew that like all men, he had his flaws and he spent a lifetime combating them. Had today’s GOP litmus test been seriously applied to him, he could not have passed the test.
The Democrats don’t have litmus tests. If the nominee is a Democrat, they support their candidate all the way, and if they lose it isn’t because they didn’t fight like demons for their man or woman.
If we want to win in 2008, Republicans had better wake up, and quit talking Ronald Reagan and start being like Ronald Reagan.
It may come as a surprise to these purists, but Ronald Reagan once supported abortion too. Yet nobody ever questioned his strong pro-life credentials after his conversion to Republicanism. They accepted his sincerity. Why can’t they accept Mitt Romney’s?
Oh shut up Michael you goof. Your father changed his views back in the 60's. Twenty years before he ran for President. Mitt Romney changed his a few years ago just to appease the Republicans. Your blind if you can't see that.
We're talking about it because the Giuliani campaign and his boosters here on FR know that the only way he can get the nomination is by creating a false sense of inevitability and using anti-Hillary fear tactics.
That's why we're bombarded with postings of meaningless poll numbers, endorsements, and declarations of "only Rudy can beat Hillary". Giuliani has to wrap up the nomination early because any serious challenges will result in a complete examination of his record and the end off his hopes. Which is exactly what's going to happen.
Hillary a better President than McCain? You are delusional. McCain could defeat Hillary, one of the few Reps that can.
Whodda thunked that George Walker Bush would have surfaced for the presidency? He not only surfaced, passed the litmus test, and won the presidency for two terms. So there are people out there that can win but not Giuliani, McCain nor Romney. They aren't acceptable to the majority of the electorate.
The solution isn't that simple at least it isn't right now... believing the premise that there is no perfect candidate and won't be in the near future we have a huge obstacle to overcome.
Oh? Tell that to the Conn. Dems who nominated THIS guy:
Ronald Reagan is my favorite President of the 20th Century, but I certainly did not agree with him on every issue. But I sure would love to get another like him.
News flash: Rudy didn't say he would appoint "originalist, pro-life judges". He said he would appoint "strict constructionists". Well, that depends, then on your view of the construction. Rudy has stated that he believes Roe vs Wade is good Constitutional law. He has also stated that gun control is required by the second amendment because our right to keep and bear arms is supposed to be "regulated".
Beware of going by nice-sounding terms. You may not find that you agree on the definition of the term.
He may be a broken record, but he is not irrelevant. Please open your eyes to the damage a Guiliani candidacy would cause.
Go look at the FR poll about would they vote for Rudy or...
Not good.
As Garv so aptly stated in post 24: (michael Reagna must forgot that his dad ran against a sitting president.
Does that tell you nothing????
It's outrageous that many will not support Rudy because of just one single particular issue---
ROTFLMAO. One issue?????? Try about four. If it was only one than perhaps we could let that slide, but he has numerous.
if we can't speak out against republican adversaries during the primary season, then when? we are to be permanently muzzled from disagreeing with the stated positions of any republican? asinine.
News to you... France became what it is due to the "unimportant" social issues long before the WOT. Their response to the WOT is just a symptom of their slide...
I don't believe I made myself clear. I consider the militant sodomites, man haters, baby killers, gun stealers and anti-constitutionalists to be as serious a threat to the US as the Islamists.
WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? NYers can have guns and they had them when Rudy was mayor! I know quite a few people who had guns then and still have them. HANDGUN LICENSING INFORMATION FOR NYC
You might want to review your post of the day. What was wrong with Ronald Reagan challenging a non elected GOP president in the PRIMAIRES?
I meant what YOU meant. These one issue name callers are short sighted fools who need to create their own party.
I am a Reagan Republican and I studied him carefully from the time he was Governor to his last day in office.
Michael has his father's image correctly displayed for ALL to see. This is one of the most accurate and logical posts this forum has seen in a long time. It also relates directly to Reagan's Biography. Ronnie had real problems with the "true" conservatives when he was governor and as the President. He pointed that out in his book many times.
I hope this party will somehow regain some thread of sanity before the primaries.
Please read the last part of that comment...;)
...don't take it personally...I was writing to the spirit and didn't accuse YOU of bashing anyone....just many here which I don't engage in either....and yes, I met him as Gov. and worked on his 80 campaign in college.....still have the bumperstickers....but I do agree with Michael and even RR chastised the far right for being intolerant and uncompromising.....anyone can find that by Googling...
Exactly.
to ignore stare decisis
Stare decisis is not a constitutional doctrine and nowhere in the Constitution is it required. It is a fairly weak doctrine of common law that does not apply to block overruling a plainly erroneous ruling such as Roe. The only person who thought it did was Sandra Day O'Connor and she only said that because she didn't have the balls to say she supported Roe and abortion.
We'll see how they vote won't we?
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.