Posted on 02/12/2013 7:11:04 AM PST by governsleastgovernsbest
Ronald Reagan: RINO? Cokie Roberts and Joe Scarborough have suggested the Gipper might be viewed that way by the modern-day Republican party, making him unelectable within GOP ranks.
After Joe Scarborough said that it was Reagan who rounded up Republican support for the assault weapons ban in 1984, Roberts exclaimed "I'm not sure Reagan could get elected within the Republican party today." Scarborough concurred: "I don't know that he could."
View the video here.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
No, the current GOP would try and edge Ron out and get a moderate/liberal Repub in there. So, in a sense, they’re right.
What nonsense. The only reason why Reagan might not win in the GOP today is because the establishment would beat him back as they did Newt Gingrich. They successfully beat back Reagan in ‘76 and they thought he was destroyed. He rallied the people in New Hampshire with his “I am paying for this microphone” comment and took the momentum from Bush, the establishment’s man. From then on it was over.
If Gingrich had been able to take out Romney in either Iowa or Florida, Romney would have been done as Bush was. But the establishment saw the power of Gingrich’s ability to rally the people and sought to destroy them. Because they did not want another clear-voiced conservative getting the nomination. They want losses (Dole, McCain, Romney) or shallow victories (Bush, Bush). They do not want conservatives winning in overwheliming landslides (Reagan) and continuously work to undermine them.
I’m going to use that. Spot on.
Yes and no. He might not get the nomination - the determining factor would be how many other Conservative candidates there were diluting the vote. This highlights the inability of Conservatives to quickly coalesce around a single candidate, allowing a GOPe candidate to get the nomination via plurality.
However there’s no way that Reagan could win a general election. Just apply current demographic numbers to the voting stats of Reagans winning coalition. There are a lot less members of the groups that voted for Reagan, and a lot MORE of the ones that voted for Carter.
One problem.... Reagan did not “take the oath”, and then as a first order of business “Get those hostages out”. The deal was done before Reagan even took the oath. The hostages were released 20 minutes after Reagan took the oath. He was good. He wasn’t THAT good.
Did you see or know anything factual about “Argo”? I’m debating seeing it.
That’s very true. Gingrich should never have allied himself with the liberals. He gave the establishment ammunition against him. Gingrich’s resume, however, is one of real conservative accomplishment where Romney had to fake his way through the primaries, covering up Romneycare, his support of abortion, etc.
My point is, once the establishment picks their man, all others will be destroyed. Reagan was able to undercut them in 1980, and no conservative has been able to do it since because the establishment destroys all potential challengers very early.
I’m surprised to find anyone here watching that show.
I agree with that completely (see post #5).
I realize this is verboten to say, but *I* think Gingrich was responsible for much if not all of his own woes.
Just for ONE and excluding the wife..... Sitting on the couch with Nazi P was the worst of all metaphorical statements on what Gingrich was prepared to do for popularity.
Maybe he would have been good, he would certainly be better than the Fraud, but the same was also true of Romney, and about at least a third of “us” said Hell No to that, “I’m staying home to send a strong message to the GOP.”
“I’m surprised to find anyone here watching that show.”
I’m paid to watch so you don’t have to! Morning Joe does help set the MSM agenda. I do think it’s useful to know what the other side is thinking.
I completely disagree. Look at the contenders for the 1980 nomination ... Reagan was the only real Conservative in the pack. Then imagine if Reagan were competing against Barry Goldwater, William F Buckley Jr and George HW Bush. Bush would be the nominee.
In 2012 I saw Conservatives splitting between Gingrich and Santorum. This is an oversimplification ( due to brevity - I’m writing this on a smartphone) but it amounted to 30% sayng Gingrich was the true Conservative, 30% saying that Santorum was and 40% saying that Romney was Conservative enough and could win. So Romney got the nomination, without really having a majority of the primary voters behind him.
My fervent hope for 2016 is that it’s a two candidate race for the nomination. But I know that won’t happen ... There’ll be five or six Conservatives dividing 60 to 70% of the vote while a moderate (Jeb Bush?) gets the nomination with only 30 to 40%. And Conservatives will be angry, will stay at home on election day but will never admit that they themselves are really to blame for the situation.
I can’t argue with that.
The one mistake Reagan made was bringing on George Bush as his running mate. It was only a few months later that the son of business partner and close family friend of the ex-CIA commander took a shot at Reagan. I think that being shot and a big effect on the President.
Reagan could talk over the heads of his detractors in the MSM better than any politician before or since. He could still win the Presidency today - though by much narrower margins than his 1984 blowout of Mondale. A lot of black and Hispanics and college-age white kids even then liked his plain-spoken, humorous delivery enough to support him - certainly at a higher percentage than the likes of McCain or Romney could ever attract.
That’s how I see it too. The media and the Rockefeller Republican crowd were definately against Reagan in 1980, and worked against him. The difference now is that the media and the GOP-E would actively “collude” together, and not just to defeat a Reagan, but to destroy him and obliterate every vestige of his person and his character, via smears, falsehoods, and any other mendacious weapon.
The point of my comments was not that Gingrich was the best choice, though overall I think that he was. Santorum in my view was a one trick pony and did not have the historical heft that Gingrich had.
Our best candidate in my view would have been Palin. She was a powerhouse and would have destroyed Romney on sheer support alone. With her destroyed, the conservative mantle was split among several candidates and shifted from one to the next while Romney’s established base of support remained the same. Gingrich was the only candidate (once Cain was out) who could rally the people just on his own ideas and his own voice. Just like Reagan, he won a primary on those alone. Unlike 1980, the establishment manufactured Romney’s momentum and destroyed all opponents because they remembered what happened after New Hampshire in 1980.
You may be right that if Reagan was in a crowd of conservatives, the vote splitting would have allowed the more moderate candidate to squeak through. That’s just a lesson that we must choose our potential nominee as early as the establishment does. I think the establishment are getting behind Rubio while the Tea Party is getting behind Paul. Keep your eye on anti-Paul stories.
That's what I was just thinking.
Too many people want to paint the GOP as a conservative party with an unfortunate problem of a progressive elite that have no principals and lean leftward. With few exceptions, the entire party apparatus is and always has been without principals and full of big-government progressives. The only exception was the election of Ronald Reagan. But that was only 8 years out of 159.
Some of you Republicans may disagree, but you can't argue with presidential primary election results.
Someone like Duncan Hunter could be elected, though. Otherwise, Democrats...
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.