Perry, the GOP, and Cowboy Diplomacy

RealClearPolitics ^ | 9/1/11 | Colin Dueck

[DoughtyOne]

You do realize you took Reagan to task for voting for FDR over Hoover right? Well, obviously not.

LOL - you really are reaching.

You're the nimrod that couldn't remember his own insult to Reagan enough to realize that when you went back 79 years to blame him for voting for FDR in 1932, it was over Hoover.  This wasn't you grasping at straws at all, but it clearly evidenced my grasping at straws when I pointed this out to you.  More great logic from the desperately bereft.

I pointed out that, as Reagan himself readily admitted, he voted for FDR 4 times.

Do you realize the reason why we know FDR was wrong?  We know because of FDR.  We know because we have seen it play out.  Supporters of FDR in those days hadn't.  So you come swooping in to defend Rick Perry from doing things we know to be wrong right now, by damning Reagan for merely voting for someone in a time when people weren't completely convinced he was wrong.

...and supported the New Deal, even as President in 1982.

What bills did Reagan submit and sign into law in 1982 that advanced the New Deal?  Answer the damned question.

Are you really trying to claim that Reagan would have voted for a conservative Republican in 1932?

If Hoover had been a good president, it may have influenced Reagan not to vote for FDR.  I don't know.  The point is, neither do you.  You're flounding around almost 80 years in the past trying to dig up something on Reagan that will make your lame ass dip-stick tool look good.  So far, it's not only not working, but it's actually attaching your fellow nimrod to the tactics you are using here.

And somehow, you get from that that I am a "Hoover guy"?

Guy, I try to keep it on a higher plane, but some of this is just so dumb-ass indicative, that it actually makes me feel sorry for you.

I didn't take Reagan to task for voting for FDR in 1932.  YOU DID.  Are you with me so far?  FDR ran against Hoover.  If you didn't think Reagan should have voted for FDR, that only left one other guy.   Still with me?  You would have rather seen Reagan vote for Hoover.  Hoover was a failed president.  He is broadly reconized as a failed president.  And you can't get out of your own way on this topic long enough to quit proving you're virtually sublimanal.

Your "logic" leaves a lot to be desired...

Yeah, and for you I'm certain it's my logic, because yours sure isn't cutting it.

[x]

Well cowboy diplomacy won the cold war.

Europeans and homegrown leftists saw Reagan as a cowboy, but in his foreign policy he was a far cry from George W. Bush or Theodore Roosevelt.

Reagan was tough without being reckless or overbearing. If that's the cowboy way, fine, but it's not what people mean by "cowboy diplomacy" nowadays.

Maybe it was that Reagan, an Illinois-born Californian could be a "cowboy" in a way without being taken in by the Texas mystique that overcame LBJ and GWB.

In any event, Reagan and Bush took two different paths in foreign policy.

[DoughtyOne]

I hear ya.

[CA Conservative]

You're the nimrod that couldn't remember his own insult to Reagan enough to realize that when you went back 79 years to blame him for voting for FDR in 1932, it was over Hoover.

Who is "blaming" Reagan for voting for FDR? I'm not. He was a Democrat, and he voted for a Democrat - even he admitted it. No blame necessary, just a recognition of a fact.

Do you realize the reason why we know FDR was wrong? We know because of FDR.

Do you know why we know Gore is such a leftist jerk? Because we can look back at his record and see it. In 1988, we didn't have the luxury of the Internet and such (Gore hadn't invented it yet, apparently). So you want to write off the fact that Reagan voted for FDR because he didn't yet know what a leftist he was, but you won't write off the fac that Perry supported Gore because he didn't know what a leftist he was yet. (There was a lot more evidence at the time of FDR's leftist tendencies, as a northeastern Democrat, than of Gore's, as a Southern Democrat.) By the way, as you will see below, Reagan knew what FDR stood for, and agreed with him at the time.

What bills did Reagan submit and sign into law in 1982 that advanced the New Deal?

How about the law increasing the Social Security tax?

If Hoover had been a good president, it may have influenced Reagan not to vote for FDR. I don't know. The point is, neither do you.

Reagan was a New Deal Democrat. He joked that he had probably become a Democrat by birth, given that his father, Jack, was so devoted to the Democratic Party. The younger Reagan cast his first presidential vote in 1932 for Franklin Roosevelt, and did so again in the succeeding three presidential contests. His faith in FDR remained undimmed even after World War II, when he called himself “a New Dealer to the core.” He summarized his views in this way: “I thought government could solve all our postwar problems just as it had ended the Depression and won the war. I didn’t trust big business. I thought government, not private companies, should own our big public utilities; if there wasn’t enough housing to shelter the American people, I thought government should build it; if we needed better medical care, the answer was socialized medicine.” When his brother, Moon, became a Republican and argued with his sibling, the younger Reagan concluded “he was just spouting Republican propaganda.”

Ronald Reagan on Franklin Roosevelt: The Significance of Style

I didn't take Reagan to task for voting for FDR in 1932. YOU DID.

Nope. I didn't "take him to task". I pointed out a fact of his life.

For someone who claims to venerate and respect Reagan, you certainly don't take the time to learn about who he really was. I do, and I respect him all the more because of it.

[gogogodzilla]

How is that free? The in-state tuition cost is the amount it costs to pay for a university degree. It is not subsidized by the Texas (or for that matter, any state) government.

The out-of-state tuition fee is a way for state universities to milk everyone else for money that is then turned around and used for new projects and/or scholarship funds.

You can argue all you want about how allowing illegals into US colleges denies US citizens the opportunity to attend, but as long they pay, the college still gets paid.

[gogogodzilla]

It should be PMS - Perry Madness Syndrome.

:-P

[DoughtyOne]

You're the nimrod that couldn't remember his own insult to Reagan enough to realize that when you went back 79 years to blame him for voting for FDR in 1932, it was over Hoover.

Who is "blaming" Reagan for voting for FDR? I'm not. He was a Democrat, and he voted for a Democrat - even he admitted it. No blame necessary, just a recognition of a fact.
LOL, yep just a recitation of fact.  A 21 year old kid registers as a Democrat because his father was one, and votes for FDR in the heighth of the Depression after Hooover served up his foose-ball adminitration, and 79 years later you come here to basically denigrate him for it.  My aren't we a die-hard Reagan Conservative Republican.

Do you realize the reason why we know FDR was wrong? We know because of FDR.

Do you know why we know Gore is such a leftist jerk?
Because we can look back at his record and see it. In 1988, we didn't have the luxury of the Internet and such (Gore hadn't invented it yet, apparently).

So you want to write off the fact that Reagan voted for FDR because he didn't yet know what a leftist he was, but you won't write off the fac that Perry supported Gore because he didn't know what a leftist he was yet.

Are we talking about lofting Gore for state office here?  Was he going to be governor for Tennessee for instance?  No.  Perry wanted him to be President of the United States.  So are we really only talking about Gore here?

We had a Democrat House and Senate that had fought Reagan tooth and nail, showing their true colors.   Gore would have been able to work with them to do most anything he wanted.  That Democrat Controlled House and Senate would have been able to do almost anything it wanted too.  They would have deconstructed the Reagan legacy in much the same way you're engaged in doing it here.

Rick Perry a 38 year old party insider, wasn't able to see what this would mean for the nation in real time.  He wasn't a wet behind the ears first time voter.  He wasn't some kid from the sticks.  Rick Perry was a party insider.  He was the Texas Campaign Director for Al Gore.

(There was a lot more evidence at the time of FDR's leftist tendencies, as a northeastern Democrat, than of Gore's, as a Southern Democrat.)

Yes and every 21 year old kid that is just casting their first vote knows all this kind of stuff.  Some of this clap-trap stuff almost makes me pitty the Perry team.  Give them a break will ya.

Take a look at the list of well known players in the 100th Congress, at this link folks?  LINK Who would you like standing up to them, Al Gore or George H W Bush? CA Conservative doesn't know.  He evidently didn't know in 1988 either, because we just didn't know Democrats all that well back then.  Geez Louise.

By the way, as you will see below, Reagan knew what FDR stood for, and agreed with him at the time.

Reagan voted for FDR, when Hoover was on the rocks.  He was 21 years of age.  In 1932 he was picking the best man to lead out of the Depression.  In 1936, he was voting for the person who had made pretty good progress.  And in 1940 with Europe mired in war, and the U. S. looking like it might be drawn in, he picked the guy he was comfortable with.  In 1944, he wasn't going to rock the boart.  I don't blame him.

Reagan came into his formidable years at the heighth of the Depression.  That kind of thing can leave a mark on you.  Evidently it did on Reagan to a certain extent.

What prey tell had Rick Perry gone through that would cause him to miss the implications of a Democrat controlled government post Reagan?  Why are you acting like you couldn't see it either?

Are you telling me that in 1988, you voted for the Democrats because you didn't know any better?

What bills did Reagan submit and sign into law in 1982 that advanced the New Deal?

How about the law increasing the Social Security tax?

In 1982, the House and Senate were firmly in Democrat hands.  Reagan's choices were to allow the Social Security System to lurch towards insolvency or go take measures to keep it going on into the future.

If Hoover had been a good president, it may have influenced Reagan not to vote for FDR. I don't know. The point is, neither do you.

Reagan was a New Deal Democrat. He joked that he had probably become a Democrat by birth, given that his father, Jack, was so devoted to the Democratic Party. The younger Reagan cast his first presidential vote in 1932 for Franklin Roosevelt, and did so again in the succeeding three presidential contests. His faith in FDR remained undimmed even after World War II, when he called himself “a New Dealer to the core.” He summarized his views in this way: “I thought government could solve all our postwar problems just as it had ended the Depression and won the war. I didn’t trust big business. I thought government, not private companies, should own our big public utilities; if there wasn’t enough housing to shelter the American people, I thought government should build it; if we needed better medical care, the answer was socialized medicine.” When his brother, Moon, became a Republican and argued with his sibling, the younger Reagan concluded “he was just spouting Republican propaganda.”

Ronald Reagan on Franklin Roosevelt: The Significance of Style

While we're reviewing who Ronald Reagan was, lets listen to his own words from his own mouth.  See if this sounds like the man CA Conservative is sellectively trying to portray as a Leftist.  A Time for Choosing  (1964)

It seems natural that a 21 year old kid, seeing the devistation of the Depression, seeing Roosevelt bring things back by any means, and then take on the task of a world war, would grow to respect the man.

His father was a die-hard life-long Democrat.  What would one expect from this kid.  The fact is, that Reagan was astute enough to realize he needed to change parties, and he did so in 1962.  Think how much more left that Democrat party was by 1988, and yet Rick Perry still didn't see why he shouldn't try to give the Democrats full power that year.  And evidently CA Conservative agreed with him and voted for Democrats too.  He can't think of a single reason why Perry shouldn't have.  Very strange.

I didn't take Reagan to task for voting for FDR in 1932. YOU DID.

Nope. I didn't "take him to task". I pointed out a fact of his life.

Why sure, you innocently sited this fact from the life of a 21 year old kid, in the heighth of the depression, whose dad was a Democrat, with Hoover having failed for four years to get the nation back on the road to recovery.  In your mind, this stacks up nicely against a 38 year old party insider who had just lived through the Reagan years and couldn't see any reason why not to hand the reigns of the government to Gore and the headless horsemen in Congress.

The more you ramble on here, the more I see the 38 year old party insider Perry for who he was compared to a 21 year old rather wet behind the ears kid.

For someone who claims to venerate and respect Reagan, you certainly don't take the time to learn about who he really was. I do, and I respect him all the more because of it.
A person who respects Reagan doesn't spend his time trying to find instances in his life that would cause folks to think of him as a Liberal, and then post it on a forum in a desperate attempt to make his candidate look better.

You're willing to sacrifice some of Reagan's luster, to make Perry shine more.  I don't really have to say anything more here.  You've spilled your true colors for everyone to see.

[neefer]

You can argue all you want about how allowing illegals into US colleges denies US citizens the opportunity to attend, but as long they pay, the college still gets paid.

And you're okay with that? It's perfectly fine for illegals to have better access to Texas state schools than non-Texan US citizens?

Here's a quote from Perry's own website: '“The future of our state is dependent upon the education of our children,” Perry said, adding that efforts must focus on “providing a better future for our children, regardless of where they come from, the sound of their last name, or the heritage of their family.”' I think it would be very fair to caricature Perry standing next to a border crossing, handing out little slips of paper that read "Free Education." He's a LIBERAL on the topic of immigration.

[gogogodzilla]

And you're okay with that? It's perfectly fine for illegals to have better access to Texas state schools than non-Texan US citizens?

No, I'm not. I'm arguing a different issue, though. That being the cheap argument that somehow Perry is subsidizing tuition for illegals. He's not, as there is no subsidizing going on when paying the in-state tuition rate.

That said, Perry has a long record on supporting and demanding that the Federal government do it's job on enforcing immigration law. Up until now, he has been governor of Texas, and not in control of Federal immigration policy. As such, he's had a different responsiblity to uphold. I don't particularly agree with how he handled it in Texas, though.

I do, however, understand how government is supposed to work. And on the immigration issue, the Federal government... not the states, are supposed to enforce immigration law. And Perry has a long record of demanding that they do. So, he's got a long record of demanding the Federal government enforce immigration law, and now has a shot to make it happen.

If you can't see that the responsibilities of a governor and of a President are different, then I really can't help ya.

[neefer]

I don't particularly agree with how he handled it in Texas, though. Thanks for admitting it. I might cut him some slack on the topic if he were from a different state. I assumed Bush would do something, but was disappointed. I'm left wondering what Perry, who is less willing to curb illegal immigration than his counterpart in Arizona regardless of the Feds inaction, will do if he moves on to the Presidency.

[CA Conservative]

You are so funny. You are trying to re-write history that even Reagan admitted was true, just so you can continue to try to condemn Perry for things that Reagan did at a similar point in his life. That is truly pathetic.

Look, at an early point in his life, Reagan was a self-admitted liberal New Deal Democrat. He supported the man who instituted the most socialist programs in our country's history not once in a primary, but 4 times in the general election. And he said in his own words that even after WW2, he called himself "a New Dealer to the core". He grew out of that, and later became one of the greatest conservative leaders in the 20th Century. But even after he became a conservative, he made mistakes, and he made compromises because he believed they ultimately advanced the cause of conservatism. I respect and admire him for that, and for the fact that, unlike you, he did not try to rewrite his own history. His liberal youth, the choices he made, the mistakes he made, the compromises he made - they all contributed to the man and the leader he became.

Now Perry was never a liberal New Deal Democrat - he was a conservative Southern Democrat. After 1976, he never voted for a Democrat for president in the general election. That means he was 26 years old the last time he voted for a Democrat in the general election. Reagan would have been 37 when he voted for Truman in 1948. Perry would have been 38 when he supported Gore in the primary. So it looks like they were both about the same age when they last supported a Democrat (though Perry voted for the Republican in the general election while Reagan voted for the Democrat).You say that at 38, Perry should have been smart enough to know better than to support Gore. Shouldn't Reagan at 37 been smart enough to know better than to support Truman?

You castigate Rick Perry for the Texas Dream Act, and imply that his support of that somehow proves he is in favor of amnesty, even though he has specifically denied that. But in 1984, during a televised presidential debate with Democratic presidential nominee Walter Mondale, Reagan said, "I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots and lived here, even though sometime back they may have entered illegally." Two years later, Reagan signed an immigration reform bill that granted amnesty to 3 million illegals.

You need to get over yourself and realize that if you are going to condemn Perry for these things, that you are by inference condemning Reagan, because he did many of the same things that Perry did, and by today's conservative standards, he did worse. You can find reasons for what Reagan did - fair enough. But you can also find reasons for what Perry did. Your problem is that while you are just fine excusing Reagan, even to the point of re-writing history, you refuse to provide the same consideration to Perry. That is pure hypocrisy.

On the other hand, I condemn neither Reagan nor Perry. I recognize that both men made a journey to become the strong conservative leaders they eventually became. They both made some mistakes along the way, and that made them better men and better leaders. My position is completely intellectually consistent. Yours isn't. It is called "cognitive dissonance". You are trying to believe that Reagan was a great conservative (which he was) even though he did many of the same things (and worse) that Perry did, while believing those thing make Perry a "RINO" (which he is not). No wonder you are getting hysterical. I can't imagine how your head tries to reconcile those positions.

[DoughtyOne]

Yawn...

You are so funny. You are trying to re-write history that even Reagan admitted was true, just so you can continue to try to condemn Perry for things that Reagan did at a similar point in his life. That is truly pathetic.

Where did I rewrite anything?  I explained what was taking place in the nation during that period, how the Hoover administration had failed, what Reagan's age was, his obvious lack of political savvy at that point in his life, what his father's political leanings were, and you state this is rewriting history?  No, it's fleshing out the full history, just not the narrowly focused history that supported your propagandist goals.  Buck up.

You state that I can continue to condemn Perry for doing things that Reagan did at a similar time in his life.  Let's compare those similar times shall we.

Reagan votes for FDR in 1932:  Perry become the Texas Campaign Chariman for Al Gore in 1988

Reagan is 21,  Perry is 38
Reagan is a political novice, Perry is considered to be politically savvy enough to be Gore's Texas Campaign Chairman, one of the most important states in the nation
Reagan casts this vote in the midst of a Depression having seen Hoover fail, Perry take the job after seeing the Democrats fight Reagan, and Reagan still prevail
Reagan is just beginning to vote, his dad is his mentor, Perry is 38 years old and has been able to vote for 17 years
Reagan is just out of high school and probably in college, Perry has been a businessman and has been his own man for at least a decade
Reagan saw a failing nation, and voted to bring it back from the brink, Perry saw a nation brought back from the brink and worked to send it back to the brink

You're about as far off as you could be, trying to compare the two.  Actually, if Perry is a girl, I'll concede that point to you.

Look, at an early point in his life, Reagan was a self-admitted liberal New Deal Democrat.  He supported the man who instituted the most socialist programs in our country's history not once in a primary, but 4 times in the general election. And he said in his own words that even after WW2, he called himself "a New Dealer to the core". He grew out of that, and later became one of the greatest conservative leaders in the 20th Century. But even after he became a conservative, he made mistakes, and he made compromises because he believed they ultimately advanced the cause of conservatism. I respect and admire him for that, and for the fact that, unlike you, he did not try to rewrite his own history. His liberal youth, the choices he made, the mistakes he made, the compromises he made - they all contributed to the man and the leader he became.

It's okay for you to keep spouting this one-sided stuff, because there is a grain of truth to it, but it really makes you look terrible when you don't present the whole matter so people can come to an understanding of what was taking place in the nation in those days.  It's like saying, yes officer, I saw him shoot that man at point blank range.  Then the officer turns to a second witness and asks, was the man doing something threatening?  Oh yes, he had a gun to the man's head that shot first.  The officer looks back at the first person and asks, why didn't you mention that?  And the person responds, we'll the guy that got shot was my friend.  There would also be a grain of truth to my telling that I had been over to a friend's house a number of times, and that it always seemed so dark inside.  Do you think it might help folks to understand that I only went over there at night?  You're only telling the "he shot the man at point blank range", and the "always seems so dark" stories here.  That's dishonest, prejudicial, manipulative, and self-serving.

Here's a few other facts you left out.

1932:

01. Hoover(R) had been a dismal failure, leaving an almost catastropic economy for Roosevelt to take over
02. When Reagan voted for Roosevelt in 1932, he was part of 57% of the populace who did so.  Roosevelt won all but six states.
03. Roosevelt was inaugurated March 4, 1933 (32 days after Hitler was appointed Chancellor of Germany).  The U.S. was at the zenith of the worst depression in its history. Somewhere between 20.6 to 24.9% of the workforce was unemployed. Farm prices had fallen by 60%. Industrial production had fallen by more than half since 1929. On the evening of his inauguration day, 32 of the 48 states, as well as the District of Columbia had closed their banks. The New York Federal Reserve Bank was unable to open the next morning.  (and here you are trying to make hay off Reagan not casting a vote for the man who had left this mess / absolutely shameful)
04. Hoover himself had come up with at least one New Deal type program, and Roosevelt kept it, Hoover's major relief program for the unemployed under the new name, Federal Emergency Relief Administration.
05. By 1936 Unemployment had dropped to between 9.9 and 16.9%.  (between 20.6 and 25.9% in 1932)

1936:

06. When Reagan voted for Roosevelt in 1936, he was part of 60.8% of the populace who did so.  Roosevelt won all but two states, Maine and Vermont.
07. Kansas Governor Alf Landon, who accepted much of the New Deal, ran against Roosevelt in '36.  (You saw that right? LMAO)
08. Reagan's choices for President in 1936 included the New Deal author, and a man who didn't object to most of the New Deal.  (OUCH!)
........What this means is, if Reagan had voted for Landon, you could have come here and revealed that truth too.  Landon was for the most part, a New Dealer.
09. The Gross National Product grew by 34% from 1932 to 1936
10. By 1940 Unemployment had dropped to between 9.5 and 14.9%.  (between 9.9 and 16.9% in 1936)

1940:

11. When Reagan voted for Roosevelt in 1940, he was part of 55% of the populace who did so.  Roosevelt won 38 of 48 states.
12. Roosevelt's opponent Willkie centered his presidential campaign about three major themes: the alleged inefficiency and corruption of Roosevelt's New Deal programs, Roosevelt's attempt to win an unprecedented third term as President, and the government's alleged lack of military preparedness. Willkie claimed that he would keep most of FDR's New Deal welfare and regulatory programs, but that he would make them more efficient and effective.  (Drat!  You just can't catch a breat there partner.)
........What this means is, if Reagan had voted for Willkie, you could have come here and revealed that truth too. Willkie was for the most part, a New Dealer.
13. By 1940, the Gross National Product had grown by 58% since 1932.
14. By 1944 Unemployment had dropped to 1.2%.  (between 9.5 and 14.9% in 1940)

1944:

15. Willkie dies of a heart attack on October 8th, 1944, months before his term would have ended.
16. When Reagan voted for Roosevelt in 1944, he was part of 53% of the populace who did so.  Roosevelt won 36 of 48 states.
17. Thomas E. Dewey ran against Roosevelt in 1944 crusading against the alleged inefficiencies, corruption and Communist influences in incumbent Roosevelt's New Deal programs.  ( FINALLY!... you catch a break here.)
18. Timeline of important dates related to the War with Japan. LINK It's imporant to remember, that we were still at war with Germany and Japan, with decisions being made, and important battles fought.  Voters were naturally going to give this heavy consideration in the 1944 election.
19. By 1945, the Gross National Prodcut had grown another 56% since 1940.

20. April 12th, 1945 Roosevelt Dies

Summation:

Reagan voted for Roosevelt in 1932, because Hoover had cratered the nation.
Reagan voted for Roosevelt in 1936, because he approved of him, and Landon was essentially a New Dealer too.
Reagan voted for Roosevelt in 1940, because he approved of him, and Willkie was essentially a New Dealer too.
Reagan voted for Roosevelt in 1944, because he apporved of him, and we were still wrapping up Europe, and in the midst of fierce fighting in the Pacific.

That 1944 vote is probably your best bet to wedge people on. I still think you're going to look like a bozo if you try to trash Reagon for not wanting to change CICs with our European and Pacific Theaters still active.

As for Roosevelt's policies, I agree that they have had lasting long term negative consequences.  I must interject the following comments here on behalf of people who can no longer comment.

As for Reagan being a New Deal Democrat, so were the Republicans who ran against Roosevelt in 1936 and 1940.  People who lived through the late 1920s and through the 1930s, saw and experienced things that wounded them for life.  You might not like it, and I'm not that thrilled with it, but the public saw Roosevelt as the man who turned the nation around after the Great Depression.  A majority of polls rank Roosevelt as the second or third greatest president.  Roosevelt is the sixth most admired person from the 20th century by U.S. citizens, according to Gallup.

Was Roosevelt responsible for seriously screwing this nation up?  I believe so.  He was also responsible for seeing us through some of the darkest days in our nation's history.

We can get as worked up over Roosevelt as we want, but the bottom line is this.  Roosevelt has been out of office for sixty-six years.  How much of his agenda was rolled back from 2000 to 2006?  Please, make a long list for me.  While you're at it, perhaps you might like to address the fact that the Medical Part D provision, was nothing if not a New Deal type program.  Perhaps you'd rather think of it as anther Great Society Program.  Do you begin to see why I don't want a RINO in the White House staring January 2013.

If we actually get a Conserative in there and we have a Tea Party dominated Republican Party in the House, and a simple Republican majority Senate, we can for the first time make major inroads into elimination and replacing the programs Roosevelt created, that are plaging our nation today.  At the same time, we can address some of Lyndon B. Johnson's crap.

So what I want to know is, are you willing to fall in behind a real Conservative, or are you going to continue to try to place another guy in the White House who can't process his dirty laundry fast enough?

I'd love to see you actually sign on for once to vote for a person that actually will rid us of those New Deal and Great Society programs.  Perry never will.  He'll merely add to them.

Now Perry was never a liberal New Deal Democrat.  Perry was born in 1950.  While you're at it why don't you assure me he never voted against Lincoln, he didn't refuse to join Noah, and his languange wasn't counfounded at the Tower of Babel.

...he was a conservative Southern Democrat. After 1976, he never voted for a Democrat for president in the general election. That means he was 26 years old the last time he voted for a Democrat in the general election.

Can't help but see the humor in your Dance of the Butterflies here.  He tried to install Al Gore as President in 1988, so Gore could govern with a Democrat Majority House and a Democrat Majority Senate.  Is that what Southern Democrats were doing in those days?  Really?  Hmm.  Why not click this link to see how those Southern Democrats were kicking ass for the Democrat Presidential race that year.  Hint, that area down there in pink below the Masson/Dixon line will probably interest you most.  I don't know though, it's actually looking quite pink at least one state up, and as far as five states up in at least one instance.  Excuse me, what were you saying about Perry being just one of the good ole boy Southern Democrats?  Were they voting for Democrats that year?  Were they taking Campaign Director's postions all across the South?  Looks to me like Rick was out there by his lonesome.  And if you're going to tell me he voted for Bush, then you're also telling me that he was willing to sell out his morals for a fast buck. I guess that sorta puts things in the proper perspective. LINK

Reagan would have been 37 when he voted for Truman in 1948. Perry would have been 38 when he supported Gore in the primary. So it looks like they were both about the same age when they last supported a Democrat (though Perry voted for the Republican in the general election while Reagan voted for the Democrat).You say that at 38, Perry should have been smart enough to know better than to support Gore. Shouldn't Reagan at 37 been smart enough to know better than to support Truman?

Hmm, I may be wrong, but I'm not sure Reagan is going to be on your ballot in the 2012 primary.  All this angst probably isn't warranted.

Perry tried to get Al Gore elected to the Presidency of the United States, to take the hand-off from Ronald Reagan.  I know you can't grasp this, but the Democrats in Truman's day were not the sort of Democrats there were in 1988.  From what you say, Reagan gave Truman his single vote.  Perry on the otherhand, got Gore lots of votes.  You can flip-flop around on the floor like a dying cod, but you're not going to be able to cover the stench of Perry running Gore's 1988 Presidential Campaign bid in Texas.

You castigate Rick Perry for the Texas Dream Act, and imply that his support of that somehow proves he is in favor of amnesty, even though he has specifically denied that. But in 1984, during a televised presidential debate with Democratic presidential nominee Walter Mondale, Reagan said, "I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots and lived here, even though sometime back they may have entered illegally." Two years later, Reagan signed an immigration reform bill that granted amnesty to 3 million illegals.

Actually he signed a bill that wound up granting 3.5 million aliens amnesty, but why quibble.  I know you're trying.  I covered this in a detailed response to you above. You obviously didn't read it.  Here you are raising it again.

The bottom line is, the bill Reagan signed was supposed to legalize only the one million people Reagan was assured were all that were here.  Even at one million, Reagan saw illegal immigration as a real problem and passed new laws to fix it.  That same bill toughened employer sanctions and border enforcement.  Sadly, the presidents that follow him did not order their Justice Departments to enforce the laws of our nation.  Our borders were over-run.  These presidents allowed it to happen.  Bush, Clinton, Bush, Bush, Obama..., they each failed their oath of office, specifically Article IV Section 4, which states (paraphrased), "The President of the United States shall protect the states from invasion."  Now you come here to trash Reagan on the matter, but push another RINO, and neglect to tell us the cards that are up that huckster's sleeve.

Let's see, Perry has been governor since what 2001?  In May of 2011, he introduced a Sanctuary City bill in the Texas Legislature.  It was such a pressing issue, that he re-introduced it on July 11th, 2011.  Thirty two days later, Perry declared his intent to run for Presdient of the United States.  So essentially Perry spent something like 97.5% of his term in office prior to announcing his candidacy, before he introduced this issue to the Legislature for the first time in May.  This demonstrated rush to get illegal immigration under control in his state, is quite impressive, especially in light of Perry's documented concern, "...Texas border communities are under siege from spillover drug violence and illegal immigration."  Imagine how long he would have waited if the welfare of his state's citizens wasn't his top priority. This would indicate to me that if he hopped on the problem with similar haste after he became presdient, we could expect him to take action on the day after Pearl Harbor Day in 2020.  Oh I can't wait to vote for his guy...

On August 27th, 2011, Perry got real tough on Illegal Immigration.  It only took him two weeks after declaring, his candidacy, but he is a busy man.  He has put the federal government on notice, that it owes the state of Texas $349 million dollars for illegal alien inmates.  Think about that for a minute.  Here Perry produces demand for payment for illegal alien costs for fiscal years 2009/10.  That's $349 milion for that year alone, and it only took Governor Perry ten years to figure out that he had a problem.  My only question at this point, is who does Perry submit a bill to for the United States, a few days after that December 8th, 2020?  Man, I'm sure looking forward to that payment.  Aren't you?

Perry's support for a process of naturalization for Mexican citizens that fight in our military sounds okay.  I've said in the past that I support citizenship for the illegals who do this.  It's not that simple though.  Here we are training a foreign national in the state of the art weapons and tactics, who are then a few years later going to return to their illegal immigrant mom and dad, brothers and sisters, aunts and uncles, nieces and nephews, grandparents et al.  How does this individual take it, when the hammer falls on those who are here illegally?  Do they become angry?  Do the put their traing to good use?  I don't know that answer to that, but it is a real issue.

Today we have between 20 and 35 million illegal immigrants inside the United States.  In Reagans day we were talking about a few million.  Today we probably have a few million crossing our border every year.  Despite Perry saying the border is not in control, it's dangerous, he is still stuck on no Arizona style laws in his state, refuses to have a fence or wall built, doesn't want to see the 14th Amendment loophole for birth-right citizenship fixed, and continues to say, "We can't send 12 million people back to their country."  Governor, we had nine million people who came across our border in the 1990s.  You seriously think we only had 3 million come over since then?  Here he is.  Can't send them home.  That's his rock solid position.

I'm at a loss to see what this guy plans to do.  No fense.  No Arizona style law.  No Repatriation.  No 14th Amendment Fix.  In state tuition for illegals.  Citizenship for Serivice.

Is there even one thing there for the benefit of citizens of the State of Texas?  No.

You need to get over yourself... as opposed to you who doesn't.  LOL  Riiiiiight.

...and realize that if you are going to condemn Perry for these things, that you are by inference condemning Reagan, because he did many of the same things that Perry did, and by today's conservative standards, he did worse.  That's just not flying Sparky.  There are legitimate reasons for what Reagan did.  There's no real need to explain it away, but there is plenty of contextual history that more or less makes you look like you really don't know your history quite as well as you thought.  Reagan voted for Roosevelt in 1944.  He voted for Truman in 1948.  He didn't work as a Texas Campaign Chariman for either of them.  He most certainly didn't try to get a Democrat in the White House with a Democrat majority in the Senate and the House in 1988.  He didn't try to pass something like that off saying that's what Southern Democrats do, when most Southern Democrats were voting for Bush.

You can find reasons for what Reagan did - fair enough.  A reason is something that explains away something wrong.  Why is it more wrong to vote for Roosevelt than a person that cratered the U.S. Economy?  Why is it wrong to vote for one New Deal person twice, when they were running against a New Deal Republican those two times?  Your logic is incoherent in light of what was actually taking place.  You smeared Reagan.  You had no business doing it.  "NOT" fair enough...

But you can also find reasons for what Perry did.  I cannot find a reson for Perry trying to push the Trans-Texas Corridor through the state, in the process, causing private land owners to have to give up over 70,000 acres of their land.  I cannot find a reason for Perry to issue an Executive Order on Gardasil.  I cannot find a reason for Perry to state 12 (actually 20-35) million illegal immigrants can't be repatriated.  I can't find a reason to ever use language in the presence of a foreign Leader from a nation on our border, that includes the words, "Open borders", when our nation is being over-run by foreign nationals to the tune of upwards of 1.5 to 2.5 million illegals per year..  I can't find a reason for Perry to say he won't support a barrier on this southern border, if he truely does believe what he said that his citizen are at risk.  I can't find a reason for Perry to say he'll veto any Arizona type bills to come before him.  I cannot find any reason whatsoever to explain him going to a racist organization (la Raza) that is affiliated with people and other organizations who want to take large portions of the Southern part of the nation away, for an new entity called Aztlan.  I cannot find a reason to trust a man who says, "I'm not for amnesty" one day, and then says "We can't send 12 million people home the next."  I can't see a reason to vote for a guy that has either said or done six things that help illegals, and not one that has helped citizens.  I cannot give Perry a pass for betraying the legacy of Ronald Reagan to help Al Gore try to beat his Vice President.

Your problem is that while you are just fine excusing Reagan, even to the point of re-writing history, you refuse to provide the same consideration to Perry. That is pure hypocrisy.

And your problem is that you are mired in a void, where moral relativism is alive and well.  Casting a simple vote for FDR at the age of 21 in the heighth of the Depression rather than Hoover, who cratered this nation's economy, is not the same as accepting the position of Al Gores Campaign Charman for Texas during peacetime in a good economy at the age of 38 to help him take over the White House so he could destroy Reagan's legacy..  I'm not going to explain the other situations to you again, when I should never have had to in the first place.

On the other hand, I condemn neither Reagan nor Perry.  I explained that Reagan was 21.  I explained that Hoover had cratered the economy.  I explained that there had to be change.  Then you responded with two things.  You stated that Al Gore was actually a Conservative Southern Democrat.  And then you said that Reagan should have known what a Northern Democrat was like.  In your mind that's not condemning Reagan.  I wonder if you think it's defending Gore or Perry.

On the evening of Roosevelt's Inauguration the banks of 32 of our 48 states were no longer operating.  The very next morning the New York Federal Reserve had to close it's doors.  Farm prices had fallen 60%. Over our industrial output was at 50% of the 1929 levels on elction day.  between 20.6 and 24.9% of our populace what out of work. The U.S. is in the midst of the worst depression in U.S. history.  Are you grasping any of this?  Despite this you still want to run with, "Well, Reagan should have realized what a Northern Demodrat was?"

This doesn't reveal your dedication to condemning Reagan for voting for Roosevelt?  Sorry, not even you are that stupid.

I recognize that both men made a journey to become the strong conservative leaders they eventually became.

If there were nothing else Perry had done, his Executive Order regarding Gardasil would strike that down.  Perry is not king.  He's not a dictator. He's not going to act like either, and get a vote from me.  That is about as far from a stong Conservative Leader as it gets.

They both made some mistakes along the way, and that made them better men and better leaders.  We both agree.  Reagan was a great leader.  Trying to compare Perry to him is ludacrist.

My position is completely intellectually consistent.  No it's not.  You've been dishonest, misleading, telling half truths, and trying to spread disinformation.  If you can't see it, that's okay with me.  I and others can.

Yours isn't. It is called "cognitive dissonance"  What you're trying to infer would be closer to cognitive disequilibrium.  The sad thing is that you can't even grasp that the more you have tried to compare Perry to Reagan, the more you been have forced to venture deeper into it.

1. Your premise was that history showed Reagan really goofed up by Conservative norms, by voting for Roosevelt.  The reality is, a number of completely verifiable aspects can be proven, to reveal new information to you, that contradicts what you thought you knew.

 a. It's not a breach of Conservative principles to vote for a Democrat candidate that may have a solution to help the nation, if the Republican candidate has proven they have none, by cratering the nation.
 b. It's not a breach of Conservative principles to vote for a Democrat when you oppose certain of their policies, if the Republican candidate supports those same policies.
 c. It's not a breach of Conservative principles to vote for a Democrat, if all things being equal, they have shown at least some progress in righting the ship of state.

Here's a bonus:

 d. Even if your stated claim was  true, Gore wasn't so bad, it is still bad to support him if he would complete the control of the Legislative and Executive Branches of our government by one party, when a clearly better candidate is available to prevent that.  George H W Bush was that better candidate, and Al Gore was the Democrat. (that was aleady known in the day to be a complete fooseball) (and the Legislative Branch in those days was a snake pit.)

You are trying to believe that Reagan was a great conservative (which he was) even though he did many of the same things (and worse) that Perry did,

My position is completely intellectually consistent.

In some ways I agree, but this does not confirm what you think it does.

...while believing those thing make Perry a "RINO" (which he is not).

My position is completely intellectually consistent.

No wonder you are getting hysterical. I can't imagine how your head tries to reconcile those positions.

My position is completely intellectually consistent.

Snicker...

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"In any event, Reagan and Bush took two different paths in foreign policy."

No doubt about that. However, there was no 9/11 during Reagan's presidency.

The only thing to even compare to that in our history is Pearl Harbor IMO and that was against a military objective. 9/11 was mainly against civilian objectives. Nothing in our national psych prepared us for that. It changed the way we think and the way we conducted foreign policy. I can tell you that it changed the way I thought. I was far more in tune with Smedley Butler and the rest of the 1930's isolationists pre 9/11. Not anymore.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

CA Conservative,

I’ve made the same case with others on Freep when they have brought up the fact that Perry supported Gore in 1988. Sometimes I think that these people that dismiss Reagan being a new dealer Democrat in his young life probably were not adults during Reagan’s Presidency and have just read about the mythology of Reagan. He is indeed one of our greatest Presidents. But Reagan was a man. Which means he wasn’t perfect. He made mistakes in his life and then went on to correct them. Just like Perry.

The fact is that if we hold every candidate up to the myth that is Reagan, none of them will measure up. Including Reagan. As I’ve made a point many times before, if Reagan were in as a candidate, people on here would be ripping him for raising taxes and passing gun control as Governor of California. We have to get the candidate that is the best candidate. Not the perfect candidate. The only one that is truly deserving of derision on here IMO is Mittens Romney. IMO he’s a fake, fraud RINO northeastern Republican who needs to be beaten by one of the other candidates. Whether it be Perry, Bachman, Cain etc...

[x]

The only thing to even compare to that in our history is Pearl Harbor IMO and that was against a military objective. 9/11 was mainly against civilian objectives. Nothing in our national psych prepared us for that. It changed the way we think and the way we conducted foreign policy. I can tell you that it changed the way I thought. I was far more in tune with Smedley Butler and the rest of the 1930's isolationists pre 9/11. Not anymore.

Fair enough. But the government's response wasn't always very well thought out.

I have to admit, though, Reagan was working within a clear and defined framework. The "saber-rattling" or "triumphalism" that liberals accused him of were neither here nor there because his administration worked within the established Cold War system, more or less.

Bush's administration made some serious mistakes, but they didn't have those guidelines worked out by previous administrations through trial and error over many years. Still, with hindsight, a lot of their assumptions look pretty flimsy.