Posted on 03/08/2012 6:24:52 AM PST by Brices Crossroads
You are incorrect. A centerpiece of Reagan’s campaign was his pro life stance. Prayer in school was another big issue as was school busing.
He was very much a social conservative, and was quite outspoken about it.
The economic and foreign policy issues were the main driver of the debate that election, but social issues did play heavily in it.
You can trust Rush’s memory....libs hated Reagan for his social stances.
With due respect, any one who with a straight face compares the essence of Reagan’s campaign and the social issue’s place in it with the essence of Santrorum’s campaign is simply insulting the memory of Reagan.
If nothing else, Reagan was so much more like able than Santorum that the comparison fails epically right there. But Reagan did not lead with these issues, nope, no way.
However, you are forgetting Reagan ran on what he called the three legged stool, which included the leg of a strong moral foundation as well. He actively sought evangelical (and catholic) support on these issues, and was very up front about his pro-life stance.
I think a candidate who shorts any one of the three legs Reagan spoke of is missing the mark. Reagan always tied the three ideas together, and did so masterfully.
No, I am not forgetting the three legged stool at all. I am also not forgetting that while Reagan was honest and sincere about his beliefs in social conservatism, he was much more realistic about a President’s job.
You cannot separate Rick’s stool, which has two tiny legs and the doggoned social tree trunk - from his whole presentation. When you walk out with a sweater vest (and YES, optics DO MATTER) and then your family comes out and takes up the whole stage - and you make them a big issue - then you are making the social issues far greater a part of your entire image.
Reagan NEVER did that. His campaign had an entirely different feel, look, smell, essence than Santorums’ does. If Santorum was at all Reaganesque in any way, shape or form, I would likely support him.
He isn’t. I do not.
Reagan was demonized as much as Santorum for his pro life, pro family stances.
I agree that the social issues weren’t the driver that they are now...RvW was only 7 years old and our social fabric was still intact then.
However, social issues were a large part of Reagan’s campaign, and motivated many conservatives like myself to support him...along with his pro military and pro business stances.
That is my memory of that time, and I believe you can find enough supporting quotes and evidence to support it.
In the end, it probably is just a matter of opinion...
It is true that Reagan supported a Constitutional amendment to allow prayer in (public) schools. It is also true that the Reagan Justice Department fought court-ordered, forced school busing. But neither of these was a major campaign issue in the 1980 election. One of the key aspects of the political genius of Regan was that he picked his battles carefully, and focused his efforts (both before and after he was elected) on a very small number of the most important issues: defeating the Soviet Union in the Cold war and reversing the 50 year trend of higher taxes and the increasing growth rate of the federal government.
Unfortunately, the candidate I support is not catching fire and has a minuscule chance of winning at this point.
There are three solutions, or we get Romney. Either we go all in for Santorum, Newt and Santorum cut a deal, or Newt pulls off some kind of miracle.
It's what we're left with, I have grave doubts that Romney is a decent alternative, he is the farthest of all three from projecting the ideals Reagan stood for.
Well your last post is more or less what I think too. I am hoping for a Newt miracle, and until I totally give up on that, I will resist joining the RS camp. I am not convinced he would actually accomplish more conservatism than Romney frankly, though he is more realiably so.
For years, this country worried too much about money and ability and neglected philosophy and character in a candidate. Now I fear we’ve gone too far the other way in our party with Santorum.
Ability, damnit, does matter. I see RS a distant third in the talent category of the four folks running. I see him as no better than tied for third in the accomplishment category. ( I also see flaws in his character, but for purposes of this thread, I won’t go there...)
These things matter, I’m telling you.
Well as you know, I think otherwise. Though folks like you certainly will help reelect Obama. And you know that, too.
“THIS was a great man.”
Yes, and the GOP nomenklatura detested him, and set about to dismantle all he had accomplished beginning on January 20, 1989. Here we are. There is no option but to defeat the machine again, inch by bloody inch.
“Well as you know, I think otherwise. Though folks like you certainly will help reelect Obama. And you know that, too.”
Honey badger don’t care.
Reagan’s forte was American strength, the advance of freedom, and total victory in the Cold War. As you say though, we knew where he stood, and he was express in his disapproval of abortion, if only on the grounds of caution in dealing with an unknown.
Fixed it for you.
When a man has a clear moral compass and political vision, it is easy to stay on course. That alone explains the difference between Reagan and Romney.
He’s a populist poplar-ist through and through. How many other politicians know that Michigan trees are all the right height?
You misspelled poplar tree lover. I fixed for you.
Would it be preferential if he were a maplist?
You could add one more SoCon:
Romney tried to slander Reagan by equating his own pro abortion stand with Reagan’s pro-life stand.
Huh?
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.