Michael Reagan: The GOP Should Dump Its 'Litmus Test'

Front Page Magazine ^ | Feb 16, 2007 | Mike Reagan, the eldest son of President Ronald Reagan, heard on more than 200 talk radio stations

[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.

[NorCalRepub]

..you are making the mistake of thinking I said "why" the won....I didn't say that at all....a common FR mistake. The other guy said there were no prolife or progun Dems running.....and I said, no, you are wrong....there were some running....I didn't say that is why they won

[areafiftyone]

Of course but what he did for NYC Was good for NYC. He knows that the U.S. is hardly NYC and he is not going to take away guns. He didn't during his mayorship and he's not going to start as president.

[Reagan Man]

Well, I don't call myself Reagan Man because of Reagan's eight years as Governor. With Reagan, it was a progression, personal growth. From FDR New Deal liberal Democrat in the 1930`s, to moderate-conservative Democrat for Eisenhower in 1952, to conservative Republican supporting Barry Goldwater in 1964, to staunch conservative Republican as POTUS in the 1980`s.

Romney has a lot of convincing to do.

[Hydroshock]

It is not my way or the highway. But I refuse to totally capitulate and that is what Rino Rudy is. The Rockefeller/Country Club wing that Rudy represents will lose big.

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

Reagan wrote this article because he sees the infighting going on in this party.

He's right, there is no way we can win if the party remains as fractured as it has become.

He also points out the fact that the Democrats have united all factions of their party to one effort. They WILL win when they keep their votes together, regardless of their differences.

[freedomfiter2]

Why do I think some of those here who so demand a strict "Reagan Conservative" were probably bad mouthing the man while in office.

Of course, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. It's the responcibility of the citizens to try to influence policy.

[MilesBennell]

You're right! I just vaguely remember it. Reagan almost won too, didn't he?

[areafiftyone]

The Rockefeller/Country Club wing that Rudy represents will lose big.

Well that's your opinion. I don't think so.

[melancholy]

To be against one candidate or the other is everybody’s right and is exercised to the fullest in the primaries.

Once we have a nominee, forget about the my-candidate-lost-and-now-I'm-mad-at the "RINOS" or the Social Conservatives and that "somebody has to pay for trying to shove THEIR candidate down my throat", followed by a protest vote for Hillary or a non-vote by staying home.

Now, somebody is really gonna pay dearly and that’s the US of A.

Grow up! it's not your principles; it's your country, stupid!

I don't believe that your "principles" will make you let the country down and enable it's destruction. I think a lot more of all of you than that.

[Hydroshock]

I was talking to a few friends this week, about goign shooting this weekend. I mentioned Rino Rudy. All are members of the NRA and none will vote for him ever. Of the 3, one even mentioned voting rat if they nominate Edwards or Richards.

[Condor51]

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 ...

This is insane, Rudy is not "solidly conservative" on anything.

And 'some' gun control?!? That's complete B#LLSH*T. Rudy might as well be President of the Brady Bunch. His views on 'gun control' equal those of every despot dictator in the 20th Century. Federal Licensing and 'Testing' of ALL gun owners is NOT 'some' gun control.

Plus anyone who views Ruth Buzzy Ginsburg as a 'strict constructionist' as Rudy does is NOT solidly conservative. Rudy would appoint judges just like her. Not Alito, not Scalia, not Roberts. Every court, every appellate district would mirror the 9th circus. This is proved by his actions as mayor in appointing 62 DEMOCRAT judges out of 66.

As to 'America's Mayor' - nonsense. Oprah gave him that moniker. OPRAH!!! Rudy Julie-Annie is NOT my mayor and NEVER was.

And Julie-Annie is NO hero - period, end, stop. He is a political opportunist who has milked 9-11 for countless millions in personal gain.

I loathe the mutt!

[spikeytx86]

When Reagan became a Republican, the party was much much more Moderate/liberal then it is today. Rudy would be considered a staunch conservative if he ran in the primaries in the 50's,60's, and 70's. Our party never became a real right of center party until the mid nineties. You think Rudy is bad on guns? You know as well as I do we used to have a lot of guys back in the day who did not want hand gun licenses but outright bans on them. From Eisenhower through Ford our candidates were either center right all the way to full on liberals in Nixon's case. Most of the people who were considered to be conservatives back in Reagan's day (Goldwater,Dole,etc.) are now considered to be centrists. By some of the litmus tests some people here want to put on our candidate like judges and immigration he would not pass muster. Reagan however was the Great President he was was not because he was 100% on all the issues but because he offered leadership and hope to our demoralized nation, slashed taxes and restrained spending pretty well considering the congress he had to work with, and he called a spade a spade and led the free world to victory against the evil and tyranny of the evil empire. In some cases the perfect is the enemy of the good.

[Neverforget01]

I guess we'll see who "loses" in the primaries. If FR is divided, imagine the rest of the Republican party?

[pissant]

I'm not. I'm stating a fact. Reagan did the right thing. Had he not run in 1976, he may have lost to GHWB in 1980. And history would be very different.

[xsmommy]

Why do I think some of those here who so demand a strict "Reagan Conservative" were probably bad mouthing the man while in office

That is hilarious, because that is me! but it was because i was in law school at the time, and a raging liberal! my sisterinlaw saved letters i wrote her at the time, depressed out of my mind that he had won!

[areafiftyone]

I was talking to a few friends this week, about goign shooting this weekend. I mentioned Rino Rudy. All are members of the NRA and none will vote for him ever. Of the 3, one even mentioned voting rat if they nominate Edwards or Richards.

Well it's a shame your friends will choose a Democrat for our Troops! Well I know plenty of gun owners who will vote for Rudy so I guess it will be 50/50. Rudy does not expect the NRA to endorse him and I'm sure he's not biting his nails over it.

[spikeytx86]

My apologies :)

[BonnieJ]

From what I've heard, it was worse in 2000 on the F.R. And G.W.Bush didn't win the polls here then.

[Condor51]

Okay, thanks :-)

[NorCalRepub]

I think that is correct....but I think blogs, forums etc do have moderate members but are usually controlled by the far left or right....therefore, you always see more infighting on sites like this.....I think most mainstream's will vote for the Republican...though I'm sure some Evangelicals might stay home if a Rudy or Rommney were on the ticket.. Always thought that line of reasoning was flawed....as if they think they will be better off with a Hillary or Obama