[justshe]

As I have posted before.....

Bold and underline formatting is mine.

~~ Ronald Reagan, in his autobiography, An American Life

---

"When I began entering into the give and take of legislative bargaining in Sacramento, a lot of the most radical conservatives who had supported me during the election didn't like it.

"Compromise" was a dirty word to them and they wouldn't face the fact that we couldn't get all of what we wanted today. They wanted all or nothing and they wanted it all at once. If you don't get it all, some said, don't take anything.

"I'd learned while negotiating union contracts that you seldom got everything you asked for. And I agreed with FDR, who said in 1933: 'I have no expectations of making a hit every time I come to bat. What I seek is the highest possible batting average.'

"If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, and that's what I told these radical conservatives who never got used to it.

---

Memories may 'light the corner of your mind'.......but 'tis always a good thing to keep them HONEST memories, no? Reagan understood the political realities. President Bush does too, imo.

[Sir Gawain]

Reagan was heading in this direction ------> with a Democrat controlled Congress.

Bush is heading in this direction <------ with a Republican controlled Congress.

[ex-snook]

"If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, and that's what I told these radical conservatives who never got used to it. "

I think Conservatives would settle for 75% today . However, today it is the Democrats, not Conservatives, who are doing the asking and getting 75%. Even wars around the world in the Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, Johnson, Clinton tradition has become a 'conservative' position. Whoda thunk it?

[ishmac]

If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for...

The problem is, we aren't getting near 75% of what we want, but the other side darn near is!! (And of course it's never enough, as Swimmer Teddy so uncompromisingly stated). I'm grudgingly going to stay with Bush, mostly because the appellate nominations have been solid (even if ineffective because of filibusters). We must not forget, as the Left never does, that in effect we "elect" a judiciary.

Bush has also done some positive things on the pro-life side (he'll sign the partial-birth ban, the Mexico City policy was reinstituted, and UNFPA was defunded -- although he's a little squishy on stem cell research, and his first supreme court nomination will be the questionable Gonzales). I'll probably vote for him again.

[Conservative til I die]

While I agree with Reagan's statements, and I agree with the idea that there is a political reality we all have to face, Reagan really wasn't talking about things like that are going on today. Reagan is talking about getting 80% of something conservative, Bush and the GOP today are talking about giving us something 80% liberal rather than 100%. I fail to see anything conservative about turning the IRS into a welfare agency with tax credits (but again, I understand the realities of politics) and sigining massive Medicare subsidies (totally inexcusible).

[zoyd]

"If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, and that's what I told these radical conservatives who never got used to it.

These days, Reagan would probably be called a 'radical conservative'.

[KC Burke]

You make a good point at 15 and compromise is spoken of as "The Art of the Possible" by Kirk and as "Prudence" the chief political virtue by Burke. Perhaps the jaggernaut of the federal involvement in healthcare "saftey nets" as settled by earlier compromise in Medicare mandates its extension into presriptions now.

Regretably, I guess a case can be made for that.

But how do you explain the No Child Left Behind layer of Federal intrusion into education? I know I can't.

My son, a teacher, is so disgusted with it he sees no practical difference in the parties except that this albatros makes the Republican both more hypocritical to their own principles and then to make matters worse, capable of foisting a more unworkable interference than we had before. I find myself at a loss to explain it away in his chief field of interest and vocation.

No, I felt that Bush was the most feasible winning primary candidate with some conservative blood in his veins, but like most elected funcionaries of either party, his vision is only four years ahead far too often for my taste.

I like his Presidential performance overall, but certain specifics let me know that he is still a functionary, not yet a Statesman.