Replies

I’m sorry, but Reagan was “pro-choice”, as it were.

Here’s a FR article on the very subject.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1959005/posts

Taken from Wiki (for what it’s worth) - Early in 1967, the national debate on abortion was beginning. Democratic California state senator Anthony Beilenson introduced the “Therapeutic Abortion Act,” in an effort to reduce the number of “back-room abortions” performed in California.[74] The State Legislature sent the bill to Reagan’s desk where, after many days of indecision, he signed it.[77] About two million abortions would be performed as a result, most because of a provision in the bill allowing abortions for the well-being of the mother.[77] Reagan had been in office for only four months when he signed the bill, and stated that had he been more experienced as governor, it would not have been signed. After he recognized what he called the “consequences” of the bill, he announced that he was pro-life.[77] He maintained that position later in his political career, writing extensively about abortion.[78]

I’m not attacking Ronald Reagan - he was singularly the greatest President of the United States in my lifetime (41 years). I joined the United States Navy in 1987, and he was my Commander in Chief for all too brief a time. However, attacking Perry for stances he had 20 or more years ago is ridiculous. When I was 21 I had vastly different views on the world, and my place in it, than I do now.

And, while he may not have been elected to office as a Democrat, he supported them, and self-identified as one until 1962. Taken from Wiki (for what THAT’s worth) - Reagan began his political career as a liberal Democrat, admirer of Franklin D. Roosevelt, and an active supporter of New Deal policies. In the early 1950s, as his relationship with Republican actress Nancy Davis grew,[52][53] he shifted to the right and, while remaining a Democrat, endorsed the presidential candidacies of Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1952 and 1956 as well as Richard Nixon in 1960.[54]

Perry changed parties in 1989 - yes, many years after Reagan did it. However, it was 5 years after being elected as a Democrat.

You do not have to support any candidate. Of the ones who have declared, I like Perry’s chance to unseat Obama the most.

You also do not have to open these links and snip, yip, and snipe at everything you disagree with.

That thread and the discussion of this subject, as it were, was an attempt by the Slick Willard disciples to drag down Reagan to get him the nomination in 2008. History repeats itself again with the Perrybots having to not only defile Reagan, but elevate Al Gore to “Conservative” status in order to excuse his execrable decision to support a man who viscerally opposed not only the Reagan agenda, but the entire Reagan era.

You yourself in your prior post called Reagan a “Pro-Abortion Democrat”, for which I correctly called you on as a falsehood. Using Wikipedia, a notoriously biased left-wing website, as a source to uphold your denigration of him is truly beyond the pale. Whatever they, or you, claim of him, he had already jettisoned liberalism and the Democrats by the early 1950s, almost 15 years prior to his election to office. He had to battle a liberal establishment to even get the GOP nomination, who were hell bent to nominate a left-winger, the last GOP Mayor of San Francisco, to be a desultory opponent to Pat Brown. He also had to continuously battle the liberal establishment in his runs for President.

Contrast that with Perry who “conveniently” used the Democrats as a vehicle to get elected, supported their causes and candidates, culminating with my leftist Senator of the time, Al Gore. When he saw that the state was moving strongly to the GOP, he just as quickly jettisoned the Democrats to cynically use the GOP for advancement. He never had to battle the establishment politicians for those higher offices within the GOP, he practically was handed those offices on a silver platter. It was Karl Rove, the doyenne of the liberal RINO establishment, who helped to “convert” Perry. He also didn’t have to battle for the Governorship, as it was dropped in his lap with Dubya’s elevation. He has lucked out in the time since by not having to face an actual Conservative Reformist in the primary. This guy has been an “insider” and opportunist from Day #1. He has absolutely nothing in common with Reagan whatsoever. Palin, on the other hand, has far more in common with Reagan. She never had anything handed to her and she has battled the corrupt establishment of both parties, one reason she is so reviled by the big government liberals of both parties.