Posted on 11/26/2007 7:40:35 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Presidential Race: The war for the soul of the Republican Party was won in 1980 by Ronald Reagan. Presidential candidates who want to re-wage the conflict in 2008 will only weaken the GOP against the Democrats' nominee.
In the aftermath of Vietnam, Watergate and a Jimmy Carter presidency that rendered America an economic and foreign policy basket case, Republicans discovered a tried-and-true recipe for electoral success.
They would stand for three sets of principles:
• Lowering high taxes and stemming the growth of government in order to revive the private economy, lower inflation and interest rates, and generate jobs.
• Rebuilding U.S. defenses and unashamedly confronting Soviet expansionism with the goal of winning the Cold War rather than learning to live with communism.
• Reasserting traditional values in the aftermath of the 1960s social revolution, including opposing abortion and smut, especially through the appointment of federal judges holding strict-constructionist views.
Overnight, the GOP was transformed. Losing the 1976 election with Gerald Ford as its standard bearer, it was a scandal-plagued "dime store Democrat" party, backing detente with an ever-more-aggressive Russia, imposing wage and price controls, and appointing to the Supreme Court liberals such as Roe v. Wade author Harry Blackmun and the high court's current most left-leaning member, John Paul Stevens.
Under candidate Reagan in 1980, it suddenly represented a vast cross-section of the country:
• Beleaguered businesses, big and small alike (and those they employ).
• Voters who feared the geopolitical consequences if America didn't soon take the "kick me" sign off its back, as the late Jeane Kirkpatrick so eloquently put it.
•The legions of Catholics, evangelicals and others who deplored America's sinking into a Hollywood-inspired moral sewer.
More than a quarter-century later, sustaining the Reagan coalition remains the recipe for Republican victory in a national election.(continued)
(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...
“You can count on Fred. He is the best thing to come along in a while. He takes on all issues without fear or polling.”
Nah, people want rhetoric and the impossible. To me, Reagan wasn’t ‘the best thing’, but he was a step in the right direction. Same with Fred.
Anderson Poofter?!!
Levin Endorsed Fred?
Thats great news!
Actually Fred Thompson has a lot more in common with Gerald Ford than Ronald Reagan. As a matter of fact, I’ve never heard him reference any work with the Reagan Campaigns of 76 or 80. Strange.
“Be great to have this thing really catch fire between now and Primaries.”
The firing up has already begun! I just finished listening to the Mark Levin show as he interviewed Fred in his second hour. Anyone interested in hearing it can go to this link and click on today’s stream audio of the show. Fred did great, as usual!:) http://www.marklevinshow.com/audio.php
Great article — thanks for posting it!
Don’t know for sure. But from the interview, it sure sounded as though he was...without really saying it in so many words.
Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh are true Conservatives and both Federalists. Who else would they support?
Great sacrifice to his family? No, that would be the Hunter family; they know about sacrifice. The Thompson boys are safe at home, following in the footsteps of their Dad and Granddad.
Anderson Cooper
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anderson_Cooper
Did anyone else know that his mom is Gloria Vanderbilt?
One never knows
Yeah, so much for FoxNews trying to bury Fred's campaign. I guess the folks at Investor's Business Daily didn't put too much stock in that report.
I had no idea!
He didn’t say the words, but praised his understanding of the constitution in a manner that implied that Fred was the only one who had any, and said that he wondered whether the pundits were afraid of Fred. It’s worth a listen. Mark has free streaming on his site (marklevinshow.com), but they don’t usually upload the show until the next day.
You know, just like you, I did my time in the Army. However, I don't expect everyone in this country to enlist. The military is not for everybody, nor should it be. I'm glad that Congressman Duncan Hunter served in the armed forces and that his progeny followed in his footsteps (as I did), but what exactly does that have to do with Fred Thompson? Are you saying that military service is a requirement for the oval office? The constitution disagrees with you. Thomas Jefferson and a lot of other distinguished chief executives never served in uniform.
Join a winning team with another good Conservative. Read some of these articles...come down to earth and be realistic because in order for Conservatives to win, we must unite behind the best possible candidate. That simply is not Duncan Hunter. I know the flames will begin.
Let’s get ur done boys!
“Levin Endorsed Fred?”
“Thats great news!”
Well Mark did not say he “endorsed” Fred. He did say that he was having Fred on his show today because he believed what Fred says. Mark also said that Fred is right about the fact that some on FOX have been against him from the start with.....He came in the race too late, he is lazy, he can’t raise the money for a viable campaign, and on and on.
I believe that Mark may endorse Fred in time, as he sure talks favorably about him and has had Fred on his show a few times.
You can listen to the show for free here:
http://www.marklevinshow.com/audio.php
Fred comes on about 35-40 minutes into the show if you want to jump ahead.
Thank you sir...I couldn’t have said it better. I’m an incredible woman, mother of twins, wife of 35, no 36 years, and I too have never served in the military.
Thanks for the info
My wife gave me this tid bit about a year ago. According to her, Anderson Cooper is not given his propers in the international correspondent circles and is seen as a lightweight a la Matt Lauer.
On another entirely different, but equally lightweight matter, what the heck kind of name is “Mitt”, anyway? What is it, some kind of a glove? Did the guy use to play baseball”? (yeah, right...)... Is it short for “Mittlothian”? Is it a less perjorative form of “Mutt”? Any ideas?
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.