Posted on 08/20/2011 9:27:02 PM PDT by Hillary's Folly
Wow! That was great. *Cheers* to Wisconsin.
Reagan is important as an inspiration...not so much a precise road map
And George Bush.
Faulted? Obviously, you didn't live through the Reagan Era. If you had, you wouldn't engage in such revisionism.
Reagan never supported open borders and stated many times, "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 --- along with improved border enforcement and a limited legalization provision for 300K illegals. Later, that figure would rise to 900K and jump to a final figures of 2.7 million. That was not Reagan's fault, however.
If the IRCA of 1986 had been properly enforced and not abused or had its funding gutted by Ted Kennedy and the Senate Democrat majority, it would have been a success. And today we wouldn't be talking about massive problems associated with illegal immigration.
When Reagan nominated O'Conner he was convinced she was a solid conservative and said so in his Presidential Diary. Not only did O'Conner have the backing of senior Reagan advisers Ed Meese and George Shultz. She also received a solid endorsement from GOP activist, conservative jurist and long time personal friend to O'Conner, Justice William Rehnquest.
No President can be held responsible for a Supreme Court Justice changing over 10-20 years on the high court. Eisenhower thought his pick of Earl Warren turned out to be a huge mistake. Nixon wasn't satisfied with Warren Burger. And Bush41 was unhappy with David Souter.
Both J. O'Conner and J. Kennedy did not turn out the way Reagan had envisioned. That sometimes happens with lifetime appointments to the high court.
I didn’t know that the defeat of the Soviet Empire was possible in my lifetime, if at all.
Thank you Ronald Reagan.
Airborne sir.
Reagan can be given the benfit of the doubt for signing the 1986 Amnesty because of the enforcement that never materialized. But he should have expected nothing less when dealing with the likes of Ted Kennedy.
Kennedy had a long record of using false promises to get immigration reform enacted. When advocating for the 1965 Act, he said it would not result in significant increases in overall immigration nor would it upset the racial/ethnic balance of the nation. Was he EVER called out on any of this? Well of course he wasn’t by the media, but maybe if Reagan hadn’t had such a romantic (and yes, liberal) view of legal immigration, he would have informed the nation that the 1965 Act was not working as its sponsors promised it would.
From his own words, and his apparent satisfaction with the results of the 1965 Act, it seems Reagan was leftwing when it came to how much legal immigration we should have. He apparently supported massive legal immigration, it is clear that such a policy has and will continue to import lots and lots of future Democrats. Mass immigration is one reason why Reagan couldn’t even carry his home state today.
As to Sandra Day O’Connor, well wasn’t it the case that Reagan had made a campaign promise to nominate the first woman to the Supreme Court? That was his first mistake; making such a leftist-style promise that would not appeal to anyone who actually voted for him.
The earlier crushing disappointments put on the High Court by Eisenhower and Nixon do not absolve Reagan with the O’Connor mistake, they actually make it worse. Reagan should have learned from those monumental mistakes and been much more careful. The GOP controlled the Senate then, so there was no reason not to nominate someone with a more sure, consistent, and verifiable record of conservative jurisprudence. He could have found someone much less likely to ‘grow in office.’ Scalia was overwhelmingly confirmed a few years later. Maybe Bork would not have been borked had he been nominated before the GOP lost the Senate.
As to Anthony Kennedy; yeah, that was another mistake. That one wasn’t as bad because Kennedy was the third choice, but in hindsight maybe they should have dug in with Ginsburg. I mean, what’s the big deal if he smoked some pot decades earlier? I doubt he would have come up with the ludicrous and absurd “Sweet Mystery of Life” method of constitutional interpretation that Kennedy did (and that Scalia has so rightly ridiculed).
And Bush the Elder deserves tremendous blame for the Souter disaster. He and Sununu allowed themselves to be duped by Warren Rudman. If Bush could get Thomas confirmed a couple of years later, then maybe he could have gotten Edith Jones or Emilio Garza or some other known conservative entity when he got the first opening that went to Souter.
It is true that people change. I’m sure O’Connor and Kennedy were lured by the praise they would get from the press whenever they went left. It’s true that a President can’t be held entirely to blame for these horrible disappointments. But when was the last time a Democrat made a mistake and nominated a good (or at least not horrible) judge? I guess you’d have to go back to Byron White. The Democrats always succeed in putting terrible, activist, leftwing, living constitutionalists on the Sup Court. The GOP, however, is merely 4/7 going back to Reagan in getting good judges on the bench. And yes, I contend that O’Connor and Souter at least were avoidable mistakes.
Nobody is perfect. Reagan was a great man and a great President, but I can’t dismiss his Sup Court mistakes and his leftwing views on immigration as easily as you can.
Reagan is truly one of the greatest presidents. A great man. I disagree with those who think there will never be another Reagan though. We know what conservatism is and our next great president is out there. I personally like Herman Cain. He could be the next Ronald Reagan.
>>>>>Reagan was a great man and a great President, but I can’t dismiss his Sup Court mistakes and his leftwing views on immigration as easily as you can.
I'm not dismissing anything. Just setting the record straight by countering your distortions and allowing the historic record to speak for itself. Reagan's choice of O'Conner was a principled decision. To call that decision, a "leftist-style promise", is juvenile BS at best. Reagan made it clear in his Presidential Diary entries that O'Conner was the right person for the job. Btw, I don't remember Justice O'Conner opposing Reagan in the 1980`s from her seat on the high court. O'Conner became less reliable to the GOP and ultimately a "swing vote" after Reagan was out of office. Reagan didn't have a crystal ball and to hold him responsible for what ideological shifts O'Conner or Kennedy may have taken years after he left office, is intellectually dishonest.
>>>>>Scalia was overwhelmingly confirmed a few years later.
And just like Scalia, both O'Conner (before) and Kennedy (after), were unanimously confirmed by the Senate too.
>>>>>..maybe if Reagan hadn’t had such a romantic (and yes, liberal) view of legal immigration
There you go again! Granted, Reagan was an eternal optimist, but his liberalism ended long before the 1965 immigration act was enacted. After the '48 election of Truman, Reagan started a fundamental shift in his politics, opposing big govt liberalism and embracing limited govt conservatism. Along with opposing Democratic candidates and supporting Republicans like Eisenhower and Nixon in the 1950`s. And you can't say Reagan deserves the benefit of the doubt on signing the IRCA of 1986, then turn around and attack him for not being critical of Ted Kennedy on the 1965 immigration act... and expect to be taken seriously.
>>>>>From his own words, and his apparent satisfaction with the results of the 1965 Act, it seems Reagan was leftwing when it came to how much legal immigration we should have. He apparently supported massive legal immigration, it is clear that such a policy has and will continue to import lots and lots of future Democrats. Mass immigration is one reason why Reagan couldn’t even carry his home state today.
No doubt, Reagan was satisfied with the passage of the IRCA of 1986. I'm not clear when it came to the INA of 1965. The idea that most illegals will one day become Democrat voters is not something new. Again. If the IRCA of 1986 had been enforced, we would not have the huge issues we have today with illegals in California, or throughout nationwide for that matter.
Hypothetical aside. Reagan won two big victories in California and had eight years of success as Governor. After two huge election landslides and eight years of success as President, Reagan left America in good shape. His conservative policies were the driving force behind the 1994 Republican Revolution and Newt's Contract With America. All in all, a great legacy.
>>>>>Nobody is perfect.
Good way for a malcontent to cover his butt.
“There is a reason that commandment was relegated to 11th... “
Why don’t you explain how one selects which of Reagan’s ideas we follow, and which we reject?
That presumes to make the current internet “conservaties” more wise than Reagan himself.
I like the original.
“There is a reason that commandment was relegated to 11th...”
For Reagan he must have felt it was important. It was his first, after those of God and Moses.
And using it he was a winner.
Did Reagan promise to nominate the first woman to the Sup Court or not? Why did he do that? Who do such promises appeal to? Did he need to make such a promise to beat Carter?
I guess it’s too bad that the Casey vs Planned Parenthood case (or something similar...I don’t know when the challenged Penn restrictions were passed) didn’t reach the Sup Court before Reagan left office, since, according to you, O’Connor would likely have gotten it right then. I guess Reagan’s presence in the Oval Office kept her from ‘growing’ as a justice.
O’Connor was an avoidable mistake. The point about Scalia getting easily confirmed is not that the overwhelming confirmation indicated any sort of informed judgement from the Senate (afterall, O’Connor got more votes than the vastly superior Roberts and Alito), but rather that Reagan could have gotten a true conservative confirmed with the O’Connor pick. Reagan made one good pick out of three (setting aside the shameful Bork affair and the Ginsburg implosion). Had he gotten just 2 out of 3, then one of the most egregious examples of judicial activism ever - Roe - would have been overturned. Of course, it’s entirely possible that it would have been reinstated after Clinton replaced Byron White, but that goes to another issue of how the Sup Court has way too much (self-appointed) power; something about which no President or Congress has been any good in opposing or rectifying.
If Reagan had gotten 3 out of 3, and Bush hadn’t screwed up with Souter, then we’d have a 6 member conservative majority to this day (assuming the Souter alternative hadn’t retired under Obama’s watch). Somehow W, who isn’t half the President Reagan was, managed to avoid an O’Connor like mistake, albeit with some help from a near revolt over the Harriet Miers pick. We’ll never get another chance to right the Court like that which we lost with Reagan and Bush, and then with the election of Obama and the retirement of Souter and Stevens.
But hey, maybe I’m being too hard on O’Connor. Afterall, she did say after the people of Michigan voted to ban racial preferences that she thought it was okay that they did so! Wow, she thought the rubes actually had a say, and could actually undo a decision of hers approving of racial preferences. That was mighty generous of her majesty.
If Reagan’s liberalism ended and his embrace of limited govt began before the 1965 Imm Act was enacted, then it’s a shame he didn’t see how that Act was responsible for the growing importation of people who were obviously not going to embrace limited govt or conservatism or vote for those pushing for it.
And it’s not an idea that amnestied illegals will vote Democrat. It’s reality. They have, and they will again. But it’s not just illegals; most legal immigrants will go on to vote Democrat as well. As great as Reagan’s vision was on the Cold War and fixing the Economy, it’s just a shame that he had blinders about legal immigration. Again, read his comments about it. It seems he had no problem whatsoever with unending mass legal immigration. If he had been less of a romantic and liberal on legal immigration, then perhaps he could have seen what was happening. Maybe he could have seen how it would help wreck his home state within 20 years of him leaving office. It’s just sad that if someone like Reagan came along today, he would get crushed in California. In another decade or so mass immigration will have turned Texas into a battleground state. We’re pretty much screwed when that happens.
That’s why I can give him the benefit of the doubt about dealing with Ted Kennedy on the 1986 Amnesty, because it seems Reagan had not given any thought at all to the 1965 Act and how Kennedy used false promises to help get it passed. If he had, then perhaps he would not have been so trusting about the enforcement aspect of the Amnesty.
I feel no need to cover my butt because I don’t have a problem looking at the pros and cons with any person. I grew up during Reagan, so I don’t have an adult’s perspective on his Presidency while it happened. But looking objectively back at Reagan I do think he was great. I think he achieved monumental things. And I can see he screwed up with O’Connor and regret that he didn’t think more critically about immigration.
So yeah, nobody is perfect.
>>>>>I feel no need to cover my butt because I don’t have a problem looking at the pros and cons with any person. I grew up during Reagan, so I don’t have an adult’s perspective on his Presidency while it happened. But looking objectively back at Reagan I do think he was great. I think he achieved monumental things. And I can see he screwed up with O’Connor and regret that he didn’t think more critically about immigration.
Got news for you. At the rate you're going you never will have an adult perspective on the Reagan Era SC picks or immigration policy. Its okay to weigh the pros and cons, but blaming Reagan for unintended outcomes is deadwrong. What you have is a warped perception of the nature of events as viewed through the prism of 20/20 hindsight. You criticize actions Reagan took and decisions Reagan made, decades after the results and outcomes of those actions and decisions are well known. You also question the critical thinking process Reagan used to reach his decisions, while ignoring the political reality of the time. That is called, second guessing and while its an easy way to offer an opinion from the sidelines, it remains intellectually dishonest.
>>>>>If Reagan’s liberalism ended and his embrace of limited govt began before the 1965 Imm Act was enacted, then it’s a shame he didn’t see how that Act was responsible for the growing importation of people who were obviously not going to embrace limited govt or conservatism or vote for those pushing for it.
In 1965, liberal Democrats controlled ALL three branches of government with large majorities in the Congress and they could pass any law they chose to. The INA of 1965 came out of the Kennedy Admin and was promoted by hardline liberals like LBJ, RFK and Fat-Teddy Kennedy. FYI, Reagan was not an elected official in 1965. If you have any quotes from Reagan on the INA of 1965, pro or con, post them. Otherwise, don't presume to speak for Reagan.
America has changed, just not for the better. Its changing because over the last 80 years, liberal politics of the Democratic Party has been more successful than conservative politics of the GOP. The last 50 years has seen the introduction of more and more social engineering, class warfare and intrusion into the lives of everyday working people. From the New Deal to the Fair Deal to the Great Society to ObamaNation, the left has trampled on the Constitution and engaged in endless attacks on America's traditional values and beliefs.
Ronald Reagan was not only the ultimate Cold Warrior. He was the ultimate culture warrior in the battles between liberalism and conservatism. From 1964 until 1994 Reagan was in the middle of the political war in America. To understand and appreciate who Reagan was, requires an understanding of politics as it existed in his day. Back then, the GOP was the minority party in Congress. In fact, with few exceptions, from the early 1930's through the early 1990's Democrats controlled the Congress.
What Reagan accomplished in the 1980's was unprecedented. Especially without his party holding the purse strings. Not only did Reagan's leadership almost kill off Rockefeller Republicanism, it fought the Democrats to a stand-still and in many cases reversed the march of liberalism. Although many Republicans jumped on the Reagan bandwagon just for the ride, sadly they were never true conservatives. They were Reaganites pushing the Gipper's conservative and federalist agenda. When Reagan retired many of these moderates, centrists and rinos moved on rejecting future conservative efforts.
Reagan made conservatism the driving force it is today because he was a trailblazer at the pinnacle of political power and at the center of debate on every major issue of the last 50 years. From tax reform, to limited government, to national defense, to abortion, to immigration, Reagan pushed the ball downfield as far as he could. After the short term successes of the 1994 Republican revolution and Newt's Contract With America, there was no one around to pick up the ball and drive conservatism further downfield. Even though Bush43 was an instinctive conservative on cutting taxes, strong on defense and a social conservative on issues like abortion and marriage, Bush43 was like Bush41 when it came to spending, another big govt liberal Republican.
Wake up, pal and get with the program. Read what Reagan actually had to say in the books he wrote himself --- Reagan In His Own Hand, An American Life and The Reagan Diaries, to name a few. You may learn what really motivated Reagan and what made him so successful in politics. In the process, you will save yourself from looking so foolish in the future.
To be the “next Reagan”, one has to have Reagan’s ability to survive the media, the GOP establishment, and the Democrat onslaught, and yet win in national politics.
Being conservative is not enough.
Reagan’s 11th was an admonishment to republican politicians. i am not a politician so ill say whatever i want about any politician, even republicans.
I agree. If the Republican base can’t disagree with its leadership, and offer criticism of their follies, there is little chance that anything will change within the GOP.
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.