Posted on 08/07/2011 12:37:47 PM PDT by smoothsailing
Todd J. Gillman
August 7, 2011
GOP consultant Alex Castellanos dumped all over Gov. Rick Perry this morning on NBC's Meet the Press, calling him "Sarah Palin with a skirt" and a lesser version of George W. Bush - and not in a good way.
"He has some challenges. One of them is that people think he's a little bit of a coffee table book. He's kind of Sarah Palin with a skirt. Not a substantive candidate," Castellanos said when host Dick Gregory asked if Perry could give the current front-runner, Mitt Romney, a run for his money.
Castellanos - who has advised Romney...
(Excerpt) Read more at trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com ...
“Who is this Alex guy? A Romney supporter?”
One of Romney lying hatchetmen whose job is to destroy conservative candidates so Romney will look better.
Usually does it behind the scene with a knife in the back.
Despicaple guy who looks like a despicable guy
Not like romney who looks like a nice man with good hair and heart. But sends out his hatchet men, then pretends he doesn’t know what they are doing.
Have lost whatever shred of respect I once had for Romney. I’ve watched him try to virtually destroy Gov.Palin for well over a year and since she was selected by McCain. Even when the attack sources were not so obvious 9 of ten times it turned out to be Romney’s people. Romney must really be a small man.
He's the Incredible Shrinking Man.
Don't you think there is quite a bit of hypocrisy in those who venerate the memory of Reagan (as I do), while overlooking many of the things I mention above, while quickly applying the RINO label to any other politician with whom they disagree (Perry, Pawlenty, etc)?
I don't speak for others, just myself. I'm a staunch conservative, not an absolutist. While I don't run around using the term rino lightly, there was no rino in Reagan. However, taking pot shots at the Reagan legacy in an effort to make certain politicos or candidates of today look better, is an outrage.
Reagan made thousands of decisions in an active political career that spanned decades. Predicting with any certainty what the end result of a decision is, is not always possible. If Reagan had vetoed the TAA of 1967, the legislature had the votes to override his veto. Reagan was reluctant to compromise but he did. The mass killing of the unborn was not Reagan's fault. California's liberal medical community is the party fully responsibility for the final outcome being abortion on demand.
Under Reagan federal income taxes never went up. After Reagan slashed federal income taxes 25% --- taking the top rate from 70% to 28%, the lowest levels since the 1920`s ---government revenue was hitting rock bottom. Reagan was faced with a revolt by liberal Democrats who controlled the purse strings in the House under Tip O'Neil. The GOP moderates who held a slim majority in the Senate offered no help. Instead of giving in to the Dems and raising federal income taxes, Reagan negotiated an increase to revenues through TEFRA (1981), the Highway Revenue Act of 1982 and later the Tax Reform Act of 1986. This kept conservative supply-side economic policies in place allowing the free market economy to continue its booming growth rate.
Yes, Reagan did agree to raising California incomes taxes as part of a policy to balance the budget. Reagan then used the line item veto 943 times to get a better handle on budget matters. With strict adherence to tight fiscal policy, Reagan was able to balance the budget and build annual surpluses. Reagan returned those surpluses to Cal taxpayers in the form of annual tax rebate checks on 4 occasions, totally over $5,000,000,000!
Reagan didn't support open borders. Reagan said: "A nation without borders is not a nation." Reagan did sign into law the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 which included severe penalties for employers who hired illegals --- up to a $1,000,000 fine --- improved border enforcement and a legalization provision for 300K illegals. Later that figure went to 900K. Final figures totaled 2.7 million.
If that law had been enforced and not gutted by Ted Kennedy and the Senate Democrat majority, the IRCA of 1986 would have been successful and today we wouldn't be talking about massive problems associated with illegal immigration across our borders.
Look, you can't have it both ways. No one is overlooking anything. You just need to look at the rest of the story and not rely on cheap rhetoric that ignores the factual truth and historic record.
Look, I worked for Reagan on both of his presidential campaigns. I think Reagan was the greatest president this country has ever seen. I think he is the standard against which conservatives should be measured. That being said, Reagan did a number of things over the course of his career that many here would consider not conservative. If it was anyone else, they would hang the RINO label on him.
Nothing that I said is intended to be negative to Reagan or his legacy. It is to point out the lunacy of others who demand a perfect record based on their version of conservatism, or they call a candidate a RINO. My point is that not even Reagan could meet their standard of a “true” conservative.
The fact is that any politician will have to make decisions over the course of their career that may not meet the ideological “purity” test, but are necessary in order to advance their cause. It is called the art of compromise, and Reagan was a master - he would accept something he didn’t like in order to get something that was much more important. Unfortunately, that art is now considered a dirty thing, and many people here would eviscerate any conservative who did tghe things that Reagan did regularly.
You're not the only one. Many of us did.
Problem is, politics has changed over the last 20 years. To understand and appreciate who Reagan was, requires an understanding of politics as it existed in his day. Remember, the GOP was the minority party in Congress from the early 1930's through the early 1990's. What Reagan accomplished in the 1980's was unprecedented. Obviously many Republicans jumped on the Reagan bandwagon just for the ride, but they were never true conservatives.
Reagan made conservatism the driving force it is today, but comparing today's so called leaders with Reagan just can't be done. Reagan was a trailblazer at the pinnacle of political power and at the forefront of debate on every major issue of the last 50 years. From tax reform, to limited government, to abortion, to immigration, Reagan pushed the ball downfield as far as he could. Today's conservative candidates need to pick up the ball and further advance the conservative agenda.
If he was just starting his political career today Reagan would be just as successful. Back in the day, Reagan was the master of compromise, but he never sold out his principles. Today's compromise is suppose to have the GOP caving to Democrat demands. This is no time to settle for more liberalism or moderatism.
Reagan showed us the way. He made the 1994 Republican Revolution a reality and helped open the door of possibility for a famous named Texas Governor. Not that the latter was the epitome of conservatism.
Btw. You don't defend Reagan by taking cheap pot shots at his legacy in some crazed off the wall effort to best a dunderhead and in the process lend credence to some half baked presidential wannabee.
You really need to take a chill pill. Pointing out the fact that many of the actions Reagan took over the course of his political career would brand him a RINO by the standards of many on this forum is not taking "cheap pot shots at his legacy..." It is highlighting the intellectual inconsistency of those who attack other candidates as not being conservative enough for doing many of the same type of things that Reagan did.
No one is claiming that any of the candidates or potential candidates is another Reagan. We will not see another politician of his stature in our lifetimes. But let's at least be consistent in how we evaluate the records of politicians. It appears that the crux of your argument is that the actions that Reagan took that might appear to be unconservative are explained by his philosophy, his principles and his intent. While the actions may not have had the intended outcome, it was his goals that mattered. Well, if that is the standard, let's be consistent.
Since this is a Perry thread, let's make some comparisons based on that standard. I keep seeing the complaint about Gardasil being brought up, and I agree that was a mistake on his part. But what was his intent? I think Perry would say that his intent was to protect young women from a virus that can cause cervical cancer and death. Was his mandate the best choice? Probably not. Was there real harm caused by the implementation of that policy? Perhaps some, but if so, it was minimal.
Let's compare that with Reagan's decision to sign the abortion legislation in 1967. His intent was good - to only allow abortion in order to save the life of the mother. However, that decision led directly to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children in the years between 1967 and 1970 (when abortion became legal by Supreme Court decree) as the medical community exploited the loopholes in the law. I have no doubt that Reagan regretted his decision and agonized over the deaths of those children until the day he died.
What I can't understand, however, is how some people can accept the results of Regan's decision because they know his intent was good, yet will crucify Perry for his decision, which had far fewer negative results and was also made with good intent.
LOL Thanks, but its you who really should take your own advice, bucko.
>>>>>Pointing out the fact that many of the actions Reagan took over the course of his political career would brand him a RINO by the standards of many on this forum is not taking "cheap pot shots at his legacy..."
I disagree. Posting sound bites, as you did, while ignoring relevant details related to the aftermath of a Reagan decision, is one way of taking the cheap pot shot. And anyone calling Reagan a rino should be banned from FR. Period. Frankly, I'm disgusted with all you pinheads.
>>>>>>It is highlighting the intellectual inconsistency of those who attack other candidates as not being conservative enough for doing many of the same type of things that Reagan did.
I suggested you ignore the dunderheads. Better yet, just leave Reagan out of the equation altogether.
>>>>>It appears that the crux of your argument is that the actions that Reagan took that might appear to be unconservative are explained by his philosophy, his principles and his intent. While the actions may not have had the intended outcome, it was his goals that mattered.
And your argument is a red herring at best. Many times creative politicos circumvent the system with both desired results and expected outcomes morphing into, unintended consequences. In Reagan's case, a reading of the facts supports that contention in those decisions concerning hot button issues that didn't go his way.
Finally. You chose to equate that STD decision by Perry, to Reagan signing the TAA of 1967. I'd say that is the height of intellectual dishonesty.
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.