Posted on 11/11/2006 2:42:16 PM PST by Reagan Man
Easy choice. Return to the Party of Reagan.
Easy choice. Return to the Party of Reagan.
-----
In spades. Easy choice.
republicans need to learn you can't out liberal a liberal
glockeroonie ping!
"Easy choice. Return to the Party of Reagan."
So right.
Who led the charge that regained the House for Republicans? NEWT did...so as I look back, he may be the man to run for our NEXT President...he was all over fiscal responsibility...balancing the budget, cutting big spending and big government...
The two stalwarts of conservatism over the last 25 years have been Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich. Period. They were great political leaders, advancing a conservative revolution. Newt and Dick Armey built the Contract With America fromv policy speeches given by Ronald Reagan. And with the right leadership, the GOP can have a Reagan agenda once again to build on for the future.
Remember the sign in Clinton's headquarters?..."IT'S THE ECONOMY, STUPID".
GWB should have posted a similar sign in the oval office reading, "IT'S THE WAR, STUPID".
"IT'S THE WAR, STUPID".
I kind of like
"IT'S THE CONSTITUTION, STUPID!"
Sorry, not conservative enough for the folks here, Reagan and Gingrich are downright socialists according to the prevailing purist standards.
Gingrich did the "drunken sailor" thing and backed the socialist Medicare D.
Reagan would never make it to the White House... as governor he raised taxes, passed gun control and signed abortion law that caused the number of abortions to surge in CA. And forget immigration, as President Reagan signed a massive amnesty for illegal aliens.
I'm not quite sure who is perfect ENOUGH to meet the standards around here anymore, but Gingrich and Reagan wouldn't survive any purist primaries nowadays. Too pragmatic, and that is just "selling out" and "no principles", ya know.
Darn right! And make it plain to the liberals that they're welcome to go right back to the Democrat ranks from whence they came.
So true. And isn't it funny that, while our side was trying to out-liberal the Liberals, the liberals were portraying themselves as conservatives...and winning.
But if you ask the many RINO-coddlers around here, we lost because we weren't liberal enough.
Bears repeating ad infinitum.
Mine is that so many of the electorate are ignorant so that any informed vote is overwhelmed by an avalanche of democrat biased noise. As exhibited by Glenn Beck or Sean Hannity in their man in the street interviews - typically the "victims" cannot identify people below the office of president in government - but will identify themselves as democrats - I guess it is just cool.
I wouldn't consider the results of close elections as very meaningful, at least of the voter intention. Of course, it will be very meaningful for the future of this nation.
I guess I'm just cynical, I laughed at the old, miserable people who complained about their confusion about the butterfly ballot in the 2000 election. Idiots! Who wants to hear from you anyway!
BUMP the dumbing down of too many American voters.
We would do well to remember that President Reagan's legacy is based on the whole 8 years - the way he was viewed by the general public after 6 years and after 8 years is/was quite different.
I like Newt - but he has been so trashed by the MSM that he wouldn't stand a chance.
And his Eleventh Commandment: "Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican."
Its violation helped defeat Goldwater in 1964, and assured our loss of both House and Senate in 2006.
>>I like Newt - but he has been so trashed by the MSM that he wouldn't stand a chance.<<
Not just the MSM. But Presidents have been elected before without being MSM darlings.
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.