Republicans Forgot Reagan's Message

As I write this column, three days after the midterm elections, the Democrats have taken over the House of Representatives and, with the concession of Sen. George Allen (R.-Va.), have captured the Senate as well.

Republicans lost because the Bush Administration and the Republican leadership too often cavalierly abandoned the populist conservative message and policies of President Ronald Reagan.

For far too long the American people have come to view the conservative movement and the Republican Party as one and the same. Indeed, they are not.

Conservatives need to re-establish their identity and independence from Republicanism. The Bush Administration has been hijacked by neo-conservatives who believe in “big government conservatism.” The very phase is an oxymoron—designed to give cover for big government intervention in both the domestic and foreign policy arenas.

The neo-conservatives support open borders, expansion of the education bureaucracy and promoting democracy in the Mideast through military intervention.

Republicans paid a heavy price at the ballot box for their failure over the last few years to live up to the ideals and standards which the American people believed they represented when they took the House of Representatives from the Democrats a decade ago and when Bush won the presidency in 2000.

This election turned out to be just what many conservatives had feared—a referendum on the performance of the Bush White House and the Republican Congress, rather than a contest between the two competing party’s visions for America.

Economic conservatives could not understand it when the Bush White House teamed up with Sen. Teddy Kennedy (D.-Mass.) on “big government” legislation such as the No Child Left Behind Act and the Medicare prescription drug bill. And they could not understand why “conservative” leaders such as former Rep. Tom DeLay (R.-Tex.) carried the water for the President on behalf of this massive expansion of government.

Conservatives were perhaps most dismayed with the administration’s failure to secure our borders and to deal with illegal immigration. And many conservatives such as Bill Buckley, Brent Scowcroft and Pat Buchanan were skeptical early on about the war with Iraq which they viewed as unnecessary and not a part of the War on Terror.

To further complicate matters, Republicans—who were elected by promising the highest standards of integrity—were involved in one scandal after another involving members of Congress, Republicans lobbyists and some members of the Bush Administration.

Exit polls indicated that the American electorate had become more than skeptical regarding the war in Iraq, concerned about the war on terrorism and the scandals in Washington.

One final nail in the coffin of the GOP was the failure “at all levels of government” in responding to the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. (One note: In my opinion this emphatically excludes the leadership by Gov. Haley Barbour of Mississippi in efforts exhibited in rebuilding his state.)

In short—the mid term elections can be summed as crisis of confidence in the GOP controlled Congress and the Bush White House.

Sadly, it seems that the “Party of Reagan” has been hijacked by the neo-cons, the big government crowd and the pragmatists.

The debate for the heart and soul of the Republican Party and the conservative movement has begun. Let’s hope we are up to the job.

The question is this: Do we want do the stay the course or do we want to want to return to the “Party of Reagan?”

[***Mr. Rotterman is a senior fellow at the John Locke Foundation and a GOP consultant.***]

>>>>For the umpteenth time, please explain to the class how citing FACTS about Reagan's record is a "cheap pot shot." You can't. You can't defend those parts of his record.

Two different things. A cheap shot is a deliberate attack against a defenseless opponent and a pot shot is a deliberate attack taken at an easy target. Reagan is dead and can't defend himself. You keep ignoring the obvious, no facts have been denied.

For the umpteenth time, little harpy girl in the back row of the class, I've explained all the decisions that Reagan made which YOU seem to have a problem with. Yet you still can't seem to control yourself, keep your emotions in check and stop shooting your big mouth off about how Reagan let you down. Reagan left office in 1989! The issue is Bush.

Frankly, its an honor to defend Reagan, and I will continue to do so.

>>>>And then you finish up with charming words like "dumbass" and tell me to grow up!

BFD. Politics isn't for the thin skinned, or the faint of heart. Stop your whining already.

>>>>>I'm not the one living in a dream world ...

Right. You're just in a state of anger and shock over the election results. Instead of demanding a return to a winning conservative agenda of Reagan and Gingrich, you sit around bitching about life because Bush turned out to be a lousy, incompetent leader of his party and of the nation.

George W. Bush suffered the worst Congressional defeat by a Republican President since Herbert Hoover in the 1932 election. Bush ignored his conservative base and the GOP paid the price at the polls on November 7th. The Democrats are back in power thanks to the poor leadership of Dubya.

"There is only one way to make government bite the bullet .... on all those things that should be a matter of concern. And that is to hold all elected officials accountable. Match their performance with their promises, and if you find some who don't measure up, vote them out of office.
--- Governor Ronald Reagan, Speech, Oct. 15, 1974.

Two different things. A cheap shot is a deliberate attack against a defenseless opponent and a pot shot is a deliberate attack taken at an easy target. Reagan is dead and can't defend himself.Oh baloney! It is not an "attack" to point to the truth of his political record any more than it is an "attack" to point to Bush's record. I'm not making any personal comments about the man. If you are going be bring Reagan up, you can't turn around and hide behind the "he is dead" argument. There is nothing to "defend". Either he has less-than-conservative acheivements on his record or he doesn't. If you can't handle the TRUTH, that is your problem. Pointing to the truth is not an attack.

For the umpteenth time, little harpy girl in the back row of the class, I've explained all the decisions that Reagan made which YOU seem to have a problem with......Yet you still can't seem to control yourself, keep your emotions in check and stop shooting your big mouth off about how Reagan let you down. "There ya go again" with the deliberate distortion of my argument and more personal attacks. Remind me again who can't seem to control his emotions and his big mouth? I'm not the one making personal attacks. Furthermore, I have never, ever said Reagan let me down. I've merely pointed out that he, like all politicians, did not always adhere to his conservative principles. I can accept that and see him for the great leader he was, without making up fantasies about him. You'll have to refresh my memory on Reagan's decisions. I don't recall you explaining his appointment of Justice O'Conner. Nor the abortion decision, other than to say that it "only" pertained to rape, incest and the life of the mother. Fine. That still doesn't square with his words and no one was holding a gun to his head. And sorry, "He did it as a last resort" is not a sufficient explanation for me. Try this on for size: "He did it because he is a wise and effective politician who understood that compromise is sometimes necessary --- a strategy I and my fellow conservative "purists" can't seem to tolerate for anybody but Reagan."

BFD. Politics isn't for the thin skinned, or the faint of heart. Stop your whining already. And yet Reagan, one of the most successful and effective politicians of our time, never had to resort to personal attacks. He was always a civil gentleman. You could learn something from him. Not whining...just illustrating how you're the emotional, out-of-control one.

Right. You're just in a state of anger and shock over the election results. Instead of demanding a return to a winning conservative agenda of Reagan and Gingrich, you sit around bitching about life because Bush turned out to be a lousy, incompetent leader of his party and of the nation. "There ya go again" with your distortions. I've done no such things. I've just pointed to the reality of the situation. We've validated Bin Laden's strategy. BTW, you've still failed to explain to me how "Conservatism works every time it is tried" when Santorum and Hayworth lost. This election wasn't as simple as a failure to get back to conservative agenda, as much as you would like to spin it that way.

Bush ignored his conservative base and the GOP paid the price at the polls on November 7th. Oh you mean he ignored his base when he responded to their demands for the Supreme Court nominee? (Something conservatives never whined about when Reagan nominated O'Conner). Or when he responded to their demands on the Dubai ports? Or do you mean when he signed the fence legislation? It seems to me Bush was tap-dancing for the conservative base and it earned him nothing. Thank goodness the conservative base wasn't as petty toward Reagan then for his less-than-conservative decisions as you guys are now. But then, he never was able to get a Republican congress in the first place to lose.

I'll tell ya what. Why don't you ask Santa if he can bring you a brand-new Reagan for Christmas? One with all the heroics you envision and none of those pesky little details about factual records! Of course, Santa might find some of your discourse puts you on the "naughty" list. But, then, you can accuse Santa of taking cheap pot shots at your record! ;-)

>>>>>If you are going be bring Reagan up, you can't turn around and hide behind the "he is dead" argument.

LOL Whose hiding. I'm not. Never did. I spelled out the facts and spoke to the truth. Always happy to defend Reagan and told you that in no uncertain terms. Revealing you as a whiny, cheap shot artist has also been most satisfying.

Criticism against any elected official is steeped in the very best tradition of American politics, going back to the Founding Fathers. People like you who ignore the factual truth, always revert to obfuscation and historic revisionism.

The Reagan legacy has been written, and its a great one. The Bush legacy is yet to be written. So far, however, Bush has a long way to go convincing folks he's done a good job. Most people know better. Not only do conservatives know that Bush is no Reagan, all American`s are well aware of that fact too. Reagan united the American people behind common goals. Bush has divided America.

The truth is no problem for me. Your problem is, you're not satisfied with the answers your getting. TOUGH! Here we are almost two weeks after the election and you're still throwing temper tandrums because people won't agree with you. Hey, if you want to rehabilitate the Bush Presidency, have at it.

Bottomline. The American people have voted, and sadly, they rejected Republican Party politics and its leader, GW Bush. Conservatives wanted to send a message to the Republican Party, and they did. That message was loud and clear. Ignore the conservative agenda, ignore conservatives and you'll pay the price. If the GOP continues to emulate the Bush-Rove strategy of 2006, 2008 will be an even bigger defeat for Republicans.

>>>>But then, he never was able to get a Republican congress in the first place to lose.

Neither did Bush. Gingrich brought the GOP its Congressional majority in 1994. Bush was handed a Congressional majority on a silver platter, and he lost it!

I'll tell ya what. Why don't you ask the Wizard of Oz to give you a brain, a heart and some courage, to face the facts of life. A return to the Party of Reagan is my objective between now and the 2008 election. If you want to stick to the failed policies and politics of GW Bush, go for it. Now, unless you have something new to bring to this debate. I'm done.

"LOL Whose (sic) hiding. I'm not. Never did." Oh baloney! You brought up Reagan and the turned around and said merely pointing to his record was a "cheap shot" because he's dead. Sorry, that is a Cindy Sheehan tactic and you know it. YOU brought him up. YOU are using his legacy and now YOU have to either defend it or admit that part of Reagan's success was due to his political will to compromise. "I spelled out the sfacts and spoke to the truth." And yet you STILL haven't explained Reagan's appointment of O'Conner, among other things.......

"People like you who ignore the factual truth, always revert to obfuscation and historic revisionism." Yeah right! Please cite for me where I ignored the truth. Do tell! I've acknowledged his greatness in the Cold War and the economic success of his and Kennedy's tax cut model, which Bush successfully replicated. I'm the one who has presented the whole truth of Reagan's record and you're the one who refuses to acknowledge that Reagan's record is NOT one of pure conservatism.

"Reagan united the American people behind common goals. Bush has divided America." So now you're blaming Bush because liberals hate Bush more than they love our country? You're blaming him because they would rather see us fail in Iraq than let Bush get any credit for defeating terrorism? Unreal! On the one hand you blame Bush for trying to work with the democrats. Then you turn around and blame him for "dividing" America. Make up your mind. This country was "divided" since the 2000 election. Bush made the mistake of thinking that working with democrats would win good will. Unfortunately, the political discourse of the day does not allow that. Reagan was able to work with Tip O'Neill and be congenial. Nowadays, politics is like a junior high lunchroom and if you dare stray from your table, you'll catch hell from your own side. How petty. Again, Reagan is fortunate that he didn't have to govern in that climate.

" Your problem is, you're not satisfied with the answers your getting. TOUGH!" No doubt! "He did it as a last resort" is not an answer! Maybe that is satisfactory to a cultist like yourself who is so afraid of shattering his illusion about his hero that he would rather say "They made Reagan do it" than admit Reagan made his own choices and it was the pragmatic thing to do. And, BTW, I'm still waiting on that explanation of how, "Conservatism works every time it is tried" worked out for Santorum and Hayworth!

"Here we are almost two weeks after the election and you're still throwing temper tandrums because people won't agree with you." Nope, here it is almost 2 weeks after the election and I'm shaking my head in utter amazement at the delusional levels to which some will go to pretend uncompromising conservatism is something that ever existed or could exist in the practical world.

"That message was loud and clear. Ignore the conservative agenda, ignore conservatives and you'll pay the price." Right! Poor Ahhhnold is still licking his wounds. I notice that you completely IGNORED my point that Bush did, indeed, respond to conservative demands on the Supreme Court, Dubai ports and the fence. If your spin is correct that conservatives called the shots in this election, "the loud and clear" message seems to be: "There is no pleasing conservatives, unless your name happens to be Ronald Wilson Reagan. Then you get a pass for all your moderate decisions. So you might as well do whatever the heck you want." Yep, the message is about as clear as mud and Bush got it. "They want me to be like Reagan? OK, amnesty it is ! I got the message!"

"Neither did Bush. Gingrich brought the GOP its Congressional majority in 1994." Gingrich brought the GOP majority by nationalizing the election -- something Mehlman failed to do. Of course, the fact that turnout was in the mid-thirty percent range didn't hurt matters either. "Bush was handed a Congressional majority on a silver platter, and he lost it!" LOL! So he gets absolutely NO credit for the unprecedented GAINS in congress in 2002 - just the blame in 2006! Again, as Coulter noted, it is expected that the sitting president's party loses seats in the midterms. What was truly phenominal is that Bush actually GAINED seats in 2002. Even your god, Ronald Reagan LOST seats. Bush lost more because he had more to lose. Got it? If conservatism works "every time it is tried", how did Reagan LOSE seats? Why didn't he sweep in a majority? Do you suppose it was conservatives sitting home because he wasn't conservative enough? LOL!

I like the "novel" way you countered my "Santa" with your "Wizard". I hear if you click your heels together three times while repeating, "Cheap pot shot", "cheap pot shot", "cheap pot shot" you can declare yourself the champion of the rebuttal. Instead of running off demanding that I bring something "new" to the debate, why don't you address the "old" points you have completely dodged?

As you can see, I'm not running anywhere, whiner. I'm right here. I've been debating you for the last eleven days. For the umpteenth time, you don't like what your hearing. You've been dodging the truth and the facts. The truth and the facts don't sway you. That makes you a malcontent, and a big mouth loser too boot. Nuff said.

You obviously don't like hearing the truth from me. So lets post what Rush Limbaugh and his brother David Limbaugh had to say about the election outcome. Maybe this will sway you and relieve your rockheadedness.

The antidote for what ails the Republican Party and the nation today is not to surrender to the destructive policies of the Democratic Party. But in the next few years, conservatives need to resurrect a defining, unifying message, which might result in some realignments. The guiding philosophy should be Reagan conservatism applied to today's set of similar (and different) problems. As the elections proved, Republicans cannot rely on the Democrats' bankruptcy to bail them out -- and they shouldn't.
--- "GOP: Back to the Basics" by David Limbaugh, November. 13, 2006

When things go wrong, you must first look inward. You must ask, "What did we do wrong? What could we have done better? What mistakes did we make?" It would be foolish at this stage to start assigning blame either to the media or to liberals or Democrats or the voters or the American people. I'm not going to fall into the trap that the liberals and Democrats fall into every time they lose an election and start blaming everybody else. Republicans lost last night but conservatism did not, and that is, to me, one of the fundamental elements of last night's results. Conservatism did not lose; Republicans lost last night.
--- "Republicans Lost, But Conservatism Did Not" by Rush Limbaugh, November. 8, 2006

"For the umpteenth time, you don't like what your (sic) hearing. You've been dodging the truth and the facts. The truth and the facts don't sway you." For the umpteenth time, please tell me what "truth" I've dodged? Please cite for me what "truth" I have denied. I've asked you repeatedly to cite specifics and all you do is dodge. For the umpteenth time, please answer my specific questions beyond, "He did it as a last resort". How did he appoint O'Conner "as a last resort"? That is not a "fact" -- that is a cop-out. For the umpteenth time, please explain to me how Bush "ignored" conservatives when he jumped through hoops to please them on the Supreme Court (appointing more far more conservative judges than Reagan's O'Conner), the Dubai ports and the fence legislation. Explain to me how "clear" the message was when Santorum lost and Bush was allegedly punished despite giving conservatives what they demanded. I'll even give you a bonus question in this round: Refresh my memory as to why Newt Gingrich was kicked to the curb after the 1998 elections.

So then you quote Limbaugh to make your argument! ROFLOL! What a surprise. Why, I'm shocked, shocked I tell you to learn that Limbaugh would be invoking Ronaldous Maximus! Isn't it an amazing coincidence that you would come to the same conclusion as the Limbaugh brothers? And I'm sure it was just an amazing coincidence that you and he both have the philosophy that "Conservatism works every time it is tried." Do you suppose he was surfing Free Republic and picked up that little nugget of wisdom from you? Maybe you can get some royalties from him every time he uses it! ;-)

Seriously, there is nothing new or insightful in anything either Limbaugh had to say about the election. (Which is not to say Rush isn't an insightful guy. He's been a pioneer in many ways. He has literally altered political discourse by introducing his own terms into the vernacular.) It was the same predictable response most of the talking heads on the right have been offering to spin the GOP loss into a "victory" for conservatism and, in turn, parroted here. The fact that you think you need to quote them to "sway" me illustrates that you still don't get it. My dispute isn't about whether or not we need to get back to conservatism. My dispute is with the Wonderland-Queen-of-Hearts notion that we need to "punish" republicans for doing the very same things Reagan did and with the mindless notion that Reagan is the embodiament of uncompromising conservatism. He wasn't. He compromised and that helped make him the success he was.

Now, I'm taking a break for Thanksgiving. That gives you a whole 5 days to come up with answers to my specific points. The reality is, you can't explain how Reagan did the things he did without admitting that he compromised his conservatives principles. The reality is, you can't explain why conservatives like Santorum lost when conservatism, according to Rush, er I mean you, works every time it is tried. The reality is you can't explain to me how conservatives sent a coherent "message" to Republicans when those who opposed amnesty lost and when Bush was allegedly rebuked, despite the fact that he reversed several decisions to satisfy them.

The reality is, this election was far more complex than conservatives merely sitting home. But, to the extent that conservatives did have an impact in close races, they held Republicans to a standard that even Reagan could not meet. Why can't you simply acknowledge that you have a double standard where Reagan is concerned?

Again, I'm taking a break for Thanksgiving, so you have plenty of time to answer the specific questions, or you can save yourself the trouble by simply admitting that you're giving Reagan a pass for the same things you hold against current Republicans. In the mean time, I have more exciting things with which to concern myself - the USC-Notre Dame game! The only question is, will Reagan be similing down on the school he represented as the fictional Gipper, or the school he loved in reality, USC. I'm proud to say that I was a student there when Reagan addressed our school, shortly after his retirement. My alma mater is the only school Reagan addressed gratis, as a gesture of thanks because he knew how much our school loved and supported him. So neener, neener, neener.

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.