Kemp became very liberal in the 1990s most signified by his 1996 election debate with Gore where he kept apologizing for being a conservative(but not in those words) and made things even worse. The sign of trouble was after the Clinton election 1992 Kemp started saying he could convert blacks from Clinton to Republican much like Steele claimed in early 2009 by opologizing for being a Republican.
Kemp never turned against tax cuts but instead preached that you could have tax cuts pay for spending increases (to convert minorites), and unfortunately that being the political path of least resistance (which was probably Kemp's real reason) that was tried under GWBush and even more-so under Obama leaving us in the mess we are in.
No matter what Kemp’s views in other areas, when it came to supply side economics he remained solid his entire life.
We got fooled by both Georg Bush’s, who both claimed to be supply-siders, but were really big-government Keyensians?
How many of the current crop of candidates running, who claim Reganites economicly, are really just big-government wolves in sheep’s clothing?
Cain’s the real deal when it comes to Reaganomics.
But Reaganomics isn’t Libertarian-o-nomics. If you’re going to criticise Cain, because he isn’t a purist Libertarian like Ron Paul, then you need to also criticise Reagan, because neither was he.
OK, think about what you said.