“Reagan a Rino”
I’ve never understood this argument. Reagan made a lot of mistakes, but mostly in his `salad days’. It’s part and parcel of being human.
He was a Democrat, belonged to a union (headed it actually: the Film Actors Guild), suffered a failed marriage, wound up with at least one screwball kid: his namesake, and fell victim to other foibles ... And when he set aside childish things, he did a lot of things right too.
But why in the world would anyone rattle the bones in his closet to excuse the actions of Republicans in 2010 who should know better? (John McCain, a case in point.)
The argument that we should ratify or endorse the actions of all Republicans because someone we admire made mistakes as a young man doesn’t carry any logical weight (`two wrongs’) either, and it doesn’t make any sense to those of us who learned from our mistakes.
It is an argument about purists. How pure is too pure. How impure is too impure. Is a GOP president that signs an immigration reform bill that include amnesty automatically a Rino? Is a president that signs on to the biggest tax increase in US history a Rino?
I am not so one issue oriented that I will call a good conservative president a Rino whether his name is Reagan or G.W. Bush. Like you, with Governor Palin or Reagan or G.W. Bush I would not expect to agree with every single thing they do. I do generally agree with the philosophy they have used in governing.