Posted on 09/07/2011 7:13:54 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
That didn't stop Reagan from getting elected Governor twice and President twice and having a successful 16 year run in both positions.
The LASlimes taking headline potshots at Reagan is par for course from the liberal establishment.
Barbak, writing for the Los Angeles Slimes, again demonstrates liberal empty-headedness and selective memory.
Reagan had DemonRATS w/ Tip O’Neil controlling the House.
The grand bargin was that Reagan would destroy the “Evil Empire” in return for having a soft line in the sand on gubbermint growth.
This is why Obummer and his cabal are such bad operators. They won’t give in on any serious liberty/freedom proposals in exchange for gubbermint growth. The weak-kneed RINO’s would jump at any deal; then bingo, bango, bongo ... instant majority vote in the current House!
Bare in mind, however, I’m OK with Obummer being a strategic flop because that keeps the RINO’s in line and the Tea Party eating up the votes for next year where massive gains are predicted.
I believe this is why we have the often reported “gridlock” situation.
Obummer is on a kick about putting country over party. We all know that he’s such a puss that he won’t eat his own oatmeal.
History will report that Tip O’Neil was the real deal and Obummer was just a phony.
a quote by marky bareback
“I’m a liberal journalist with a bias against evangelical voters and their phony cultural purity. I want to pounce on anyone I can see as hypocritical (as opposed to actually immoral). And just to ‘prove my point’ here’s some quotes from some left of center ‘Christian’ voices just for good measure.”
Science Fiction, like all those that insist that if JFK were around today he’d be a Republican. If he was around today he would be the biggest hack, knee jerk liberal on the scene.
Pardon me while I giggle.
Were he coming up now with the same record, maybe not. But he came up when he came up, and that was a different time. It’s not really fair to make the comparison.
He would certainly not meet the standards on FR
I’m tired of these little girls down at the LaLa Times and other commie rags spewing this DNC talking point. Don’t worry Marky, President Reagan would have been right out there with the TEA Party folks. I mean TEA Party “sons of bitches”.
Liberals are cute when they tell you that you aren’t living up to their fallacious interpretation of your standards. Which they, being superior in intelligence, are above. You might as well give it up, there just isn’t a crack in that wall of ignorance for intelligence to seep through.
Sarah Palin would...and then some.
Well, JFK might have “grown” leftist in his beliefs, had he lived. But in 1963, he was staunchly pro-America, anti-Communist, believed that Blacks should be judged by the content of their character, not given special consideration or preference because of skin color, was pro-growth by lowering taxes, and wouldn’t have even fathomed “gay rights”, let alone marriage, or come out in favor of abortion on demand. Sounds pretty republican to me. Definitely NOTHING in common with modern democrats.
The la times may not meet my standards for toilet paper...
>> I think the real Ronald Reagan didn't meet the standards of some conservatives in his day. <<
Looking at Reagan's career, he'd probably make some pretty persuasive arguments against Obamacare. A CONSERVATIVE who actually WON the Governorship of California (two times) would be MUCH more valuable today than it was in 1980 and probably be the biggest talking point why we should nominate him for President.
Because the internet is around today, he'd certainly get more scrutiny than he did in 1980 and there would be some conservatives howling about the fact he signed a bill that allowed abortion in RARE circumstances EARLY in his gubernatorial tenure (nothing compared to Romney's once avowedly pro-abortion stance, especially since Reagan was uneducated about the issue at the time and renounced it shortly afterwards). He's also take some heat because of the fact he raised taxes as Governor once... but compared to most of the current field he'd look pretty good. Reagan vs. Romney? No contest. And the 1980 version of Reagan living in 2012 would probably be much stronger on immigration than Rick Perry, aside from the fact he was talked into an "one-time amnesty" in 1986. In any case, there was nothing comparable to Guardsil or Trans-texas corridor they could hit him with.
Ironically, today's media would have a TOUGHER time parodying Reagan as a crazy right-wing extremist than Bachmann or Perry, because Reagan wasn't known for touting evagelical Christianity or pandering to the secessionist crowds. (Duncan Hunter was the most Reagan-like candidate in recent memory, and he's not running this year).
The "Reagan used to be a Democrat" thing would be a non-story today, because unlike Perry, he switched parties long before he ever ran for political office and he was never campaign manager for a socialist. (similar to how Bachmann's Democrat past is never a news story). 2012 is different than 1980, but suffice it to say I think Reagan would be perfectly acceptable to most rank-and-file Republicans if he was born during a different era and running today.
>> John F. Kennedy would not meet today’s Democrat Party standards. <<
>> In today's Lamestream GOP controlled soley by Rockefellwer establishment Liberals JFK would be called a Right Wing Extremist. <<
I disagree. The far-left moonbat fringe who think Joe LIEberman is a "right-winger" and a George W. Bush lover might accuse Kennedy of that, but it would look pretty laughable if anyone else called JFK a right-wing extremist when he was out giving speeches hailing the legacy of Woodrow Wilson and FDR, while trashing the Republicans as heartless and greedy because they opposed his schemes to massively increase government programs and handouts.
Things like abortion-on-demand and gay marriage were unheard of (and unthinkable) in 1960, so Kennedy had no stance on them. Knowing the way Kennedy was more than happy to toss aside his "Catholic" values and denounce his church's social teachings on things like birth control in 1960, I'm fairly certain he would have embraced both gay rights and abortion rights if he were running in 2012 (the rest of the Kennedy clan in Massachuttes had no trouble doing so once these issues became "popular" enough to do so).
Most likely Kennedy would blame all of today's economic woes on the Republicans (his top issue would be how the eeeeeeevil heartless Republicans don't want unlimited unemployment benefits), and that more government spending and a federal dept. of "Jobs Creation" is the answer. He'd say Obamacare didn't go far enough and a single-payer system is the answer. He'd also complain not enough is being done to bring illegal immigrants "out of the shadows" and give some sob story about his own family and discrimination against Irish immigrants as if the two were comparable. I think a modern-day Kennedy would have strongly supported going after Obama bin Laden and other terrorists, and he would have endorsed extending the Bush tax cuts. Of course, today's Dems already have a candidate who took these positions and is acceptable to most of the rank and file RATs. His name is Barack Obama.
Are there past candidates I think would have NO shot at their party's support in modern-day America?
Certainly. Gerald Ford appointed Nelson Rockefeller as his veep, that was tolerated in 1976. Today the conservative base would scream hell and the tea party would pressure the Senate Republicans endlessly until the nomination was withdrawn. Grover Cleveland was the RAT nominee for President three times but he wouldn't have a chance in hell of the RAT nomination today. Even Zell Miller would probably be more acceptable to them.
Your profile says you are 30? I'm in my 50's and remember the 1980 elections. Reagan was boosted considerably by a grassroots conservative Christian group called The Moral Majority which generally backed Reagan over Carter. It was formed by a then Democrat Rev Jerry Falwell, Republican Paul Weyrich {founder of Free Congress}, and Howard Phillips {later to become founder of The Constitution Party}.
Actually Reagan did not shun the Christian Right in the least but rather incorporated persons like James Dobson into advisor positions. This in turn lead to Reagan being fairly strong on Social issues
The GOP of 1976 and the nation was far more conservative then than now. Ford was just the beginning of The New Liberal GOP to come to power post Reagan starting with Poppy Bush who brought in many from Ford's administration. The same Liberal GOP which after running Conservative in 1994 and winning record seats in both houses promptly and immediately went Liberal under the leadership of Newt, Dole, and later Lott. It simply never got better either.
I never claimed Reagan "shunned the Christian right" or was a social liberal. Obviously Reagan was very solid on social issues (which is why he'd be acceptable to today's rank and file GOP voters), and embraced the Christian right. What I said is that Reagan did not run on evagelical Christianity (he wasn't an evangelical and evangelicals don't make up a majority of the "religious right", then or now) the way Perry and Bachmann have. Reagan wasn't much of a church-going guy pesonally, one time he even went to church and mistakeningly flicked a communion host in the glass of wine because he wasn't familar with receiving communion. Thus, there was no way the media could attack Reagan as "This guy thinks Jesus is telling him to run! He wants to establish a theocracy!!!" the way they do with born again Christians (Bush, Bachmann, etc.) running for office today. But Reagan was obviously VERY welcoming of people of faith and even was the first President to open up diplomatic relations with the Vatican.
>> Oh and I might add this as well. Ford's appointment of Nelson Rockefeller was likely a very major factor in his 1976 loss much more so then Nixon's Pardon. He ticked off the base by placing someone Conservatives loathed as VP. <<
There was some grumbling from conservatives over Rockefeller's nomination but the Senate confirmation vote was 92 to 3 (I'm guessing the three NAY votes were all Dems but can't confirm that). Today, I'm guessing there would be so much outcry from the tea party that the nomination would have never made it to a floor vote and would have been withdrawn.
In any case, I don't think it affected the 1976 election at all because Ford dumped Rockefeller for a 2nd term and selected Bob Dole as his running mate. Any conservative who couldn't stand Ford because Rockefeller was a heartbeat away from the Presidency wouldn't have to worry about voting to re-elect him because Dole would have been sworn in as veep in January.
>> The GOP of 1976 and the nation was far more conservative then than now. <<
You could make a good case the nation as a whole was more conservative then than it is now (especially on social issues, things like gay marriage would have been unthinkable). But the pre-Reagan GOP of 1976 was not more conservative than today's GOP, in my opinion. Just look at the 1976 platform vs. the 2008 platform. Roe vs. Wade was passed in 1973, but GOP didn't even have a pro-life plank until Reagan was the nominee.
What a stupid "red herring."
Reagan responded to circumstances he was dealing with.
He fired the entire group of flight controllers.
It is interesting, but totally speculative to assume that, facing the National Debt that Obama was facing when he became president, Reagan would have stupidly tripled it within 2 years.
How asinine can these hack writers be?
The vote in the Senate for Rockefeller was actually 90 to 7.
4 rats Birch Bayh, Howard Metzenbaum , Jim Abourezk and Gaylord Nelson
joined 3 Republicans, Goldwater (who changed his mind from being pro), Helms, and William Scott of Virginia.
In the House vote 98 Democrats and 30 Republicans opposed him. Don’t have those names. I wish someone should put every roll call vote from the last 100 years online.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,911579,00.html
There IS a tendency among some to label everyone a RINO.
Freudian slip ? ;-D
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.