Ronald Reagan on the importance of political compromise(in his own words)

An American Life (his autobiography) | 8/7/03 | Ronald Reagan

[Diddle E. Squat]

"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.

[Diddle E. Squat]

Thanks to freeper Justshe for pointing out this very relevant passage.

[Diddle E. Squat]

Thanks for the heads up on that passage. It seemed so relevant today, that I took the liberty of starting its own thread.

[Diddle E. Squat]

This thread is not an endorsement of Arnold. Good reasons can be put forth to support McClintock. But this does provide food for thought.

[dinok]

The problem with our current administration is that they are not even close to 75% of their agenda.

If anything, GW has conceeded to 75% fo the opposition agenda.

I know...I know...strategery right?

I don't expect Arnold to be a conservative...he has never claimed that title and he is married to a Kennedy.

[Diddle E. Squat]

If anything, GW has conceeded to 75% fo the opposition agenda.

Has he? If he is able to overhaul the courts via appointments(very possible with a win in 2004), how much does that count for in advancing conservatism? Does that count as just a single issue, considering all the ramifications and that the courts are now the liberals' endgame backdoor to overriding the constitution?

I see no signs of Bush giving in on the courts.

[joesnuffy]

the gipper quoting FDR......

[holdonnow]

Exactly right. Rush has said it repeatedly. When you compromise to promote the conservative agenda, fine. But when you compromise and promote the left's agenda, that's the problem. And that's the problem with signing the campaign finance bill, a complete surrender; signing Daschle's ag bill, a complete surrender; signing Kennedy's ed bill; a near complete surrender; and offering to sign ANY prescription drug bill that expands Medicare. There's a difference between compromise and surrender on important domestic issues.

[Keyes2000mt]

I should hope that no one is under the ilussion that if McClintock wins, California conservatives will get everything they want.

There's give and take, and there's compromising.

Having said that, there's compromise and then there's capitulation. McClintock may only be able to take half the ground we want to take, but voting for Arnold is the equivalent of total surrender of our territory to the left.

To use the batting average analogy, McClintock may be able to bat .320, Arnold will hit .059 and score a bunch for the other. That's the difference.

[Diddle E. Squat]

Is that really a surrender, or ceding ground on the battlefield to preserve/consolidate resources for bigger battles? Is he really selling out Poland, or is it just a temporary conservative quagmire on the longer road to Baghdad?

[holdonnow]

Noiminating conservative judges isn't the same as getting them confirmed. The new tone prevents Bush from pushing these candidates through -- the so-called "nuclear" option. I'm told Bill Frist won't push because Bush doesn't want the Senate's legislative "work" to be hindered.

[Redleg Duke]

I wish some of our more pure conservative brethren could consider these words.

[holdonnow]

Stop deluding yourself. Bush is a great wartime president, and a moderate on most domestic issues. Not liberal, but moderate. Now, deal with it.

[holdonnow]

"Pure" conservative guys? I suppose there are some of them around here, but that doesn't address other conservatives who are concerned about the failure to limit domestic spending (apart from law enforcement, homeland security). You don't have to be a "pure" conservative to oppose double-digit spending increases on liberal programs.

[Diddle E. Squat]

But is Bush gambling for a larger win in 2004, with Senate gains, and thus a clear mandate from which to then push through a host of conservative judges, including likely 3 USSC appointments, along with more conservative reforms in areas beyond the courts(though admittedly such a strategy IS a gamble).

[Poohbah]

I wish some of our more pure conservative brethren could consider these words.

So do I. We didn't get into this mess overnight. We won't get out of this mess overnight, no matter what some may think.

BTW, I still think that the tube's pointed at Lawton, I don't care what the AFATDS console says. :o)

[holdonnow]

This isn't and either or situation. Bush has 55 votes to confirm his judges -- even the most "controversial" nominees. Frist needs to stop the filibuster by scheduling a vote to end filibusters for judicial nominees, which requires a simple majority vote to change the Senate rules. He won't do it because of the White House's concern that other legislative matters would be lost to an angry debate, and the president doesn't want the showdown prior to the election. This should be an occasion for victory, to tell the people what the left has been doing, and to urge voters to elect more senators on these grounds alone.

[eureka!]

Good to see you around, counselor. Spot on as to W, as well....

[holdonnow]

Thanks my friend. Well, have to go. Take care.

[Ronaldus Magnus]

There's a difference between compromise and surrender on important domestic issues.

Exactly. An example of this was President Reagan's courageous stand in Reykjavik, Iceland. Against all of his advisors advice, he walked away rather than compromise the SDI initiative. Mikel Gorbachev later said that it was at that moment that he realized that the Soviet Empire was over.

[livius]

Very good points.

Let's not blow it on California the way we did last time. I am not thrilled with Schwarzenegger on a lot of points (and I'm Catholic, so I REALLY don't like his support for abortion), but I think that any Republican would be better than any Democrat.

Schwarzenegger is probably going to be more conservative fiscally than socially - but that would be a big plus for CA. He has supported some state welfare programs, but he's also aware of the need to make CA business friendly. And even Dems (like some of my family members out there) would vote for him. He has great appeal, for one reason or another, and this was something that Reagan had, too.

A "moderate" Republican would probably give us some of the things we want, and get Bush reelected. A Dem - any Dem - is going to give us nothing. Zip. Zero. Zilch.

So let's be realistic here.