Posted on 05/31/2012 9:56:41 PM PDT by Innovative
My gosh, are you trying to nag someone to support your guy?
Go do this chicky child like nagging at your husband, not to people here at freerepublic.
Nope, trying to nag you to try to say that a former Republican president would not back the GOP candidate....and you go to the personal insults. Meaning I win the hypothetical. Talk to you later, going to dance around with the trophy now.
Man what a stunningly silly addition to this 360 post thread with some very good posts on it.
You do win the trophy ... for the most patient hanging out with idiots.
Go put it on your mantle now and enjoy it.
I can’t argue with total idiots any more. It wears one out and besides the pig enjoys it.
Aren’t you the ultimate anti-freerepublic idiot that posts against freerepublic on other sites?
First post of yours I agree with!
as I’ve been....
And that is exactly why Ronald Reagan had such a sucessful presidency.
Yes, he made mistakes. Even some bad mistakes like Beruit.
But, all in all, his presidency was a rousing success and secured us at least one more generation of freedom which some of the bomb throwing purists are all too willing to p*ss away by trying to teach the GOP a lesson in cooperating with the re-election of BO.
That’s silly, those aren’t his talking points from his campaign, that’s what I see. I do not have any idea what talking points his campaign is saying about Romney. And yes, Romney did balance the budget, they started to have a surplus year after year, instead of a deficet. In California, we also balance our budget, but it does no good, cause the next year we are in debt again. Not so with Governor Romney, Massachussets stopped getting into the red. Under Romney, they no longer had deficeits that they had to fix, they started to have supluses. Different from what you are describing, and what you are saying is deceptive, it gives the wrong impression.
I think Nancy was making it pretty clear, that she knows her husband very well, and she is speaking for Reagan, to let these deceivers know that they are wrong. Nancy is saying that Ronald Reagan would approve of a Romney preisdency. She is saying it for a reason, cause she is aware of the ABR crowd and is sticking it to them, cause she knows her husband better then any person who never even met Romney, but tosses his name around to score points. That’s why Nancy spoke, cause she knows her husband better then these jokers. Don’t appologize or try to soften the blow. They need to hear the truth from Nancy, Ronald Reagan’s beloved wife. Go Nancy, give em hell, you go girl!
“I think Nancy was making it pretty clear, that she knows her husband very well, and she is speaking for Reagan, to let these deceivers know that they are wrong”
Excellent post. You are absolutely right.
Yup, they are his talking points. The same nonsense that has spewed on this website by his groupies for a half-dozen years. I’ve heard it all. As I also informed you, Michael Dukakis and Deval Patrick have also “balanced” said state budget, so you have made the argument that those two other ultra-leftist Democrats should be given the GOP Presidential nomination.
I’m sure you were also very excited about Ah-nold as well and the disastrous mess he made in exacerbating the damage of Davis. With Socialists like him & Willard, who needs Democrats ? It’s almost impossible to be any worse. Inflict them on the nation at large ? You’d have to be insane.
And those of us who know Reagan, his principles, his character, the things he stood for and fought for, know this to be an utter and total falsehood. Period.
LLS
Indeed, Palin is the only one who remotely comes close to embodying Reagan’s persona. Willard is the ultimate ANTI-Reagan in every single solitary respect.
OK, you think that Nancy Davis Reagan speaks for Ronaldus Maximus??? Just because she is his widow? Try and separate the romantic and the fanciful from the political.
When Reagan was POTUS, Nancy was forever sticking her nose in where it certainly did not belong. When Reagan trashed Gorbachev at Reykjavik, Nancy was conniving with the usual gang of top Reagan staffers like James Baker and Michael Deaver and others for Reagan to cave to Gorbachev because it would somehow enhance Reagan's place in history to be seen as spineless but "visionary" in "making peace."
As usual, commercial lawyer James Baker and all purpose prostitute Howard Baker were obsessing over what they always thought was the overriding issue of fattening the income of their clients and sycophants and pals by making business deals with soviet slavemasters while the prisoners in the Gulag suffered and the soviet Jews suffered and while the aspirations of the Russian people were crushed by their evil rulers. Nancy was probably off getting advice from her astrologer and trying to figure out how to convince her husband that er astrologer was always right. Of course, we did not elect her astrologer.
It is no secret that Nancy Reagan is and has always been an enemy of social issue conservatism and was just downright embarrassed that Ronny never agreed with her fashionable friends. She and little Ronnie Tutu were in emphatic agreement in favor of embryonic stem cell research, for one notorious example.
Nancy Davis Reagan's late stepfather Dr. Loyal Davis of the American Medical Association did a very good job of easing Ronaldus Maximus's ideological transition from Truman Democrat to hero of freedom but he was never able to do the same for Nancy who only understands "feel good" and "fashionable" and not political principle. Ronald Reagan was the political leader in the family and Nancy was not. Daughter Patti was an embarrassment during his administrations, protesting his policies and posing nude in Playboy as though anyone was interested other than to facilitate embarrassing her father. Eventually she improved and helped Nancy care for Reagan during the Alzheimer's. Little Ronnie Tutu is somewhere out there to the left of George McGovern and also claims at times to speak for Ronaldus Maximus but he doesn't. Maureen (his daughter by Jane Wyman) was at first a hard right-winger and then a militant pro-abortion feminist and an embarrassment but before she died of a metastasized skin cancer, came back to her senses politically. Adopted son Michael is probably the most loyal family member to his dad's legacy at least since the president's brother Neil died.
In many ways, it is a shame that Reagan did not stay married to Jane Wyman. When she was approached by the usual gang of media suspects in 1980 looking for dirt on Reagan and knowing that their 1948 divorce had been a bloodbath, Jane Wyman said absolutely NOTHING about policy as to which she was no more qualified than Nancy Davis Reagan and, instead, said that the United States would be very fortunate indeed to have a fine man like Ronald Reagan as its president.
In 1976, Reagan challenged Ford for the nomination (another unprincipled GOP-E airhead). I had met Reagan but did not really know him personally. I was a state chairman in that effort. Like my entire generation of conservatives, I paid intense attention to Reagan from 1964 until he was inaugurated in 1981 and beyond. We cringed when Nancy was said to have persuaded Reagan to choose the time of his inauguration as governor according to her astrologer's "readings." We cringed just about every time she opened her mouth in public and every time she connived behind his back with other airhead liberals among her "friends." She likes and admires money. Myth has money galore and is therefore admirable. That, and a desperate desire to be noticed, explains her behavior in her dotage and not any special loyalty to Reagan's views. The woman is not a deep thinker and never was.
The Ronald Reagan who proclaimed that the GOP banner should contain "no pale pastels" and "only old colors" was never a fan of George Romney and would not have thought as much or much at all of the likes of the utterly unprincipled Myth Romney.
When Reagan ran against Ford, Bill Buckley expressed to a gathering of Young Americans for Freedom his absolute disdain for Betty Ford (another fashionable airhead of the liberal persuasion, pro-abort, "peace" lover, etc.). Questioned by Morley Safer as to what sort of young man she might favor as a paramour for her very attractive teenaged daughter Susan, Betty Ford totally embarrassed herself and the nation. Buckley asked various impertinent questions to skewer her (What qualifications was Betty seeking in a lover for her young daughter? Was Betty seeking a "moderate" Republican for young Susan? Someone rich? Surely Susan would be a better judge on superficial qualities like looks? Etc.) Then Buckley, observing that Betty Ford had not thought the matter through and probably was incapable of thinking it through. He also observed that she was apparently presumed to be some sort of fount of wisdom because she had achieved her high position in life only by a "concatenation of circumstances romantic (with Gerald) and felonious (Nixon's misbehaviors)".
Let's not get carried away with the likes of Nancy as some sort of political guru much less as a spokeswoman for her late husband. Romance and politics are quite different things. Unlike the ill-fated Tsar Nicholas II, Reagan knew when to resist his wife's political nonsense and when to ignore it. She has not become more qualified since his death. But for her marriage to Reagan, no one would have a clue as to who Nancy Davis was or is.
Nancy should go all right---into a dignified and very silent and permanent retirement from matters far beyond her capability and particularly from the hilarious notion that she speaks (or has ever spoken) for her late husband.
Am I being mean? Yep, because sometimes it is necessary especially when those too young to have been there might otherwise be misled.
While you are busy whirling around the dance floor with your imagined trophy and pimping for Romney as though there were any meaningful difference on any issue of importance between him and Obozo, let the grownups intrude with the bad news.
Myth Romney using ultra-shadowy Wall Street anonymous megamoney sources who have been promised God and Lucifer only know what, has purchased the GOP nomination that sooooo eluded his slightly less leftist father. The money was spent in the most shameless campaign of lies, slanders and libels in the history of the GOP or probably in the history of American politics. The only victims were the more modestly funded actually conservative candidates.
Now, of course, like any human with two living brain cells to rub together, you solemnly assure us that Myth was hardly your first choice but we are stuck with him now. Exactly the smug line of RINOs since at least the time of Herbert Hoover, Alf Landon, Wendell Willke, Tom Dewey, Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Nelson Rockefeller, George Romney, William Scranton, George H. W. Bush (Bush the Elder), Bob Dole, and John McCain and (on social issues) Barry Goldwater. That is: "Once I am nominated, those right-wing nuts have no place else to go! Ho, ho, ho!" They assume that Democrat is a four-letter word just like at their polo clubs and Junior League meetings and brokerage board rooms and that Reagan was not elected with the crucial difference made by largely private sector union and also Southern "Reagan Democrats" who have notoriously no use for the RINO airheads.
As to the game of "what if?": what if Ronaldus Maximus were still alive, did not have Alzheimer's, and was fully possessed of his mental faculties and still, in spite of it all, vigorous physically? What would HE be doing now that Romney will be the nominee? If somehow this had occurred under the circumstances presented, he would have been on autovomit. But seriously, folks, he would have been working to prevent such disasters by his words, his actions and his senior leadership of the conservative movement. Anyone seeking the GOP POTUS nomination would have made the pilgrimage to Malibu or Rancho Cielo to touch the hem of his political garment. Myth Romney would be firmly ensconced in the Demonrat Party where he and his father always belonged. Obozo would be "organizing" in Sickago. Too many years have passed since the onset of Reagan's disability to predict who would be the specific GOP candidate now.
We do know that Reagan did not bother lifting a finger to help Ford's effort to be elected and Romney is, if anything, worse than Ford.
Meanwhile, your political slip is showing. Try not to trip over it while you dance that imaginary trophy around the old polo club.
Let's get a grip. Supporting Myth Romney is not worldly wise but rather abject surrender of the GOP and the nation to permanent political degeneracy.
75% or 80% is one thing (so long as abortion and persecuting churches for being socially conservative are NOT a price we are willing to pay). What does Myth offer? 1%? 2%? -3%? Are we talking about the same Ronald Reagan who proclaimed in 1976 that the GOP banner should be all bold colors and no pale pastels???? That Ronald Reagan? I don't think Ronaldus Maximus would have any enthusiasm for Myth whatsoever, nor should he. Now little leftwing Ronnie Tutu, maybe, probably, will privately find Romney a source of enthusiasm. His father, never. BTW, did Ronaldus Maximus leave the position of Reagan spokesperson to Nancy in his will or something? I don't remember that. Next up, when Nancy is gone, little Ronnie Tutu will claim to speak for his father and we won't listen to him either, nor should we.
Purists, as you call us, oppose BOTH evils, both Romney and Obozo. We do NOT owe the GOP our votes. It will have to earn them the old fashioned way by nominating acceptable candidates. Any old POS will NOT do. It is no argument at all to effectively say, as most Myth supporters do, that Myth is an absolute rank disgrace as a candidate and as a man, but, golly gee, Martha, it's either him or Obozo.
Next the Romney love slaves will be trying to see if "we" can persuade Her Hillaryness to accept the GOP nomination in 2016 because, mein Gott!, the alternative offered by the Demonrats is just too horrible to imagine (whoever or whatever he, she, or it may be).
I keep meaning to ping you and shamefully forgetting.
I respectfully disagree that Reagan did nothing to help Ford. I attended a Reagan-Dole event at the New Haven Park Plaza in ‘76, and while Reagan mostly attacked Carter, he also told us to vote fir the Eepublican ticket. The net effect was an assist to Ford.
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.