Cruz is certainly not the new Ronald Reagan.
Glenn Beck might be the new Hinckley, but
he is more likely the new John Wayne Gacy.
Posted on 03/19/2016 10:44:06 PM PDT by monkapotamus
The nation's Republicans are working against the clock to answer two key questions: Can conservative Ronald Reagan possibly attract enough independent and Democratic votes to win in November?
"Reagan is the opponent of choice for Carter," says I. A. Lewis, director of the Los Angeles Times Poll, a point on which most analysts agree. "But Reagan can reach across and cause mischief in the Democratic constituency," Mr. Lewis says. "Reagan appeals to blue collar, working-class voters. He can win Democratic votes..."
(Excerpt) Read more at m.csmonitor.com ...
Cruz is certainly not the new Ronald Reagan.
Glenn Beck might be the new Hinckley, but
he is more likely the new John Wayne Gacy.
“Your post showed how inferior your intelligence is to mine. Where my post was thoughtful, analytical, objective, your’s was primitive and you misunderstood me completely.”
I think you hold yourself in too high esteem. I have yet to see a thoughtful, analytical, objective post by you. I see an ignorant, arrogant, fool spewing out words that make him feel superior to himself but no others.
Trump is actually a lot like Reagan, not exactly alike but more alike Reagan than any other Presidential candidate since Reagan.
You will not be able to understand this for some time, but hopefully in a few years you will come to appreciate Trump’s leadership...we will need a strong voice to restore, Trump’s knowledge...more than any other candidate Trump knows how and where to apply free market and limited government principles to work best for the people, and Trump’s experience...he will be able to manage over great restorative change and will be able to inspire growth.
Now, you wish to banter about yourself, but truly AlanGreenSpam (poor name) you are not that important. This post is for others to see, not so much you.
No, I’m just not worried about Trump making deals with democrats.
Any president obviously has to work with the opposition. Trump will get the better of them in any deal they make.
I don’t agree with him on everything but I agree with him on most things. I trust him more than Cruz or Kasich. Admire him more too. I simply can’t find it in myself to admire much about Cruz or the eunuch Kasich.
Yes! Absolutely! The Reagan, Trump comparison, as far as the treatment from the establishment, is nearly the same. A little more nasty towards Trump, IMHO.
Fixed it.
I was trying not to be overly sensational. But, you are correct. What’s happening to Trump is by far the nastiest I’ve ever seen.
Trump = Romney
Cruz = Reagan
You could have this same exact feeling with Cruz.
We won’t with Trump.
Grow up Wpin....
Remember, it was YOUR smug post incorrectly labeling me as a Cruzbot and reeking of condescension that prompted my response.
-—”You Cruzbots are so damn brainwashed. Don’t you ever get tired of fantasyland? Where somehow your stupidity is superior intelligence over all?”
Think before you post such nonsense again.
“Grow up Wpin....
Remember, it was YOUR smug post incorrectly labeling me as a Cruzbot and reeking of condescension that prompted my response.”
I will concede that...we both knee jerked our responses but I would agree that you responded to my knee jerk response.
Yes, I responded in the same way and I apologize for that.
Let’s move on from this and sit back with popcorn to watch Trump nail Hitlery on her dishonesty.
Back to the comparison with Reagan, I think I would prefer Trump for the job of nailing Hillary because Trump is a pitbull.
Hillary doesn’t deserve the classy civility of Reagan, and quite frankly, it wouldn’t be as effective as a sledgehammer. She won’t know what hit her. Once down for the count, she’ll wail “I’m a woman and a victim.” Trump will simply laugh it off.
“Back to the comparison with Reagan, I think I would prefer Trump for the job of nailing Hillary because Trump is a pitbull.”
I was watching Scarborough the other morning and Mika was lamenting the congressional hearings on the water situation in Flint...she was very angry at both parties...she was literally sputtering mad. Suddenly she looked right in the camera and said she is so angry that she can think of only one word to say to those congressmen “TRUMP” she wants to Trump them....then she said to the panel “I would like to just say Trump you to them”. Yes, there are some advantages to having a pit bull who is your pit bull...
At a more simplistic level, we can thank Ann Coulter (I know she is often persona non grata around here these days, but I think it is relevant) for her observation that, in the media, conservatives are painted in one of three ways:1.) Evil (examples: Nixon, Buchanan, Goldwater, Gingrich, and most likely, Cruz)
2.) Stupid (examples: Reagan, Eisenhower and George H.W. Bush)
3.) Evil and Stupid (Examples: George W. Bush, McCarthy, and most likely Trump)
Full disclosure: I voted for Perot in 1992, but if you look at my Freeper Page, you will probably see the main reason why. As for Perot himself, he may have been a crazy Texas loon, but he loved his country, no denying that. And in retrospect, I do see my vote for him as a mistake, but...like today, the alternatives aren’t great
No excuses required for voting Perot in 1992, no apologies are needed to the GOPe dopes who scapegoated Perot and blamed his voters for giving us Clinton.
The truth is that you and the rest of the 19% were far, far ahead of the curve. You voted country first without blind party loyalty. Perot was prescient with both Social Security and the NAFTA fleecing of America. That 1992 election should be seen as a retroactive IQ test today, those that still fail it, even knowing the correct answer, are doomed to continuing election defeats not to mention the death of America itself. I regret voting for Bush41 both times, and 1992 is one my biggest regrets to date.
1988 was the last best chance to easily destroy the GOPe from within because after being previously contained, they had only been asserting themselves during Reagan's 2nd term ( and pretty much controlled it by the end IMHO ) and discarding Bush right then and there would have been a strategic victory of epic proportions. Unfortunately his main opponents that I can easily recall were Pat Robertson, Pete Du Pont, Al Haig ( and after looking it up add Kemp, Dole, Laxalt, Rumsfeld, Strassen ). Thanks largely to the the media belittling them, Bush emerged as the adult in the room. Frankly I would have preferred any one of the others in hindsight. Now for my part, I guess it was loyalty to President Reagan who halfheartedly was supporting his sitting Vice-President that season.
1992 was epic because Perot, without really using the words "sell-outs" or "globalists" or "traitors" shined a spotlight on the uniparty and their plans to fleece America and pick our bones clean. This election was as perfectly predictable as 1976 with a bureaucratic GOPe figure against a quasi-conservative southerner. Add a populist pro-American patriot peeling off the sane voters, like yourself, the (D)ummycrat emerges victorious, but the uniparty would have won either way as it happens.
I sometimes try to remember what got me to pull that lever a second time for Bush. The only things that really come to mind was the apparent brilliantly executed Gulf War, and a reflexive defense of him through the "read my lips, no new taxes" broken pledge saga where he was betrayed by the majority Congressional (D)ummycrats who promised a united front for the agreement and then promptly used it to beat him senseless in the campaign.
Another dynamic that had me still respecting Bush41 that season was the Clarence Thomas episode when against all odds Bush stayed behind him against a merciless onslaught, unlike the previous Bork disaster when Reagan's helpful cabal of GOPers like Howard Baker got him to abandon him.
Then there was Bush's attempt at an "October Surprise" when video footage surfaced of Bush being fished out of the Pacific after being shot down by Jap Zeros and the pretty amazing details of that mission reminded us that at least at one point, he was not an incompetent boob. For some reason Bush's war heroics trumped the parallel stories of Perot's strong support of Vietnam POW's and vets, and pretty heroic financing of the rescue of his employees held by Iranian crazies.
One eternal mystery is the glaringly obvious difference in the 1988 and 1992 candidate Bush. The first time around *he* was on the attack, ruthlessly attacking the "liberal" Dukakis and painting him as a McGovern style (D)ummy who would release felons from prison to rape and pillage and ensure the destruction of America. During the 2nd campaign this Bush was nowhere to be found! He never uttered the word "liberal" nor attempted to paint Clinton as dangerous to our health and instead played defense rather than offense, and was routinely humiliated by the press and enemy (D)ummycrats. He apparently wasn't trying to win and this is evidence of the coalescing uniparty.
There were so many other things at play in 1992. Clinton sex scandals and sleaziness and lying ( caught on audio tape with Gennifer Flowers badmouthing our liberal leftist scum Governor Mario Cuomo as a mafioso ), Bush41 looking like a punching bag with the hapless Dan Quayle not helping things, Perot's not-so-conspiracy theories about GOPe operatives attacking him, it's no wonder that many of us left our common sense at the door. The most clairvoyant thing of all time must be Perot predicting the forthcoming giant sucking sound of jobs and money exiting the USA from NAFTA and related anti-American treaties and legislation.
I want a do-over! On second thought, I think we're getting that do-over as we speak ;-)
Still photo from the video of Bush pulled from the Pacific onto the Finback sub after being shot out of the sky.
Thank you for that thoughtful response...the POW issue was a big one in my life, because I had a closer exposure to it than perhaps many other Americans at that time (and after) because my parents knew some of them personally, and as kids living in Subic Bay, PI and Yokosuka, Japan, we talked about it and wore bracelets, we knew many of them by name. So as a voting adult in 1992, I well knew about Perot’s involvement in the POW issue, and also knew very well who Admiral Stockdale was.
It still makes me burn to see the way the liberal media ridiculed him for simply being who he was, which was not a politician. I hated them intensely for that, and it persists to this day.
Oddly enough, I had a difficult time bringing my ship about when it came to John McCain. He wasn’t a hero in my eyes by any means, but I was entirely too willing to give him the benefit of the doubt both as a POW, and as my commanding officer for several months. But boy, did I ever turn around on him. But I have this loyalty thing that really made that tough for me to do.
That said, I appreciate your viewpoint on this. Thanks for responding the way you did.
Well, we agree that hillary is truth-challenged. That’s a start.
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.