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.

[Sir Gawain]

you were the only one acting decently that night

And I left around post #130 or something like that.

Or you could arm wrestle "The Legend" for stalking privliges.

Nah, some of your male buddies are the real stalkers around here. But that's another subject for another flame war.

[eureka!]

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

No, thank you for all you and Landmark do. And you too take care. The heart scare was too much. We need you around to continue fighting the good fight, especially with the 'Rats/left where they are these days...

[Howlin]

the wooden dummy, parrotting the biker bars words on FR.

Impossible. That position belong to "The Legned" and his little yappy GF, who have nothing else to do with their lives except slowly but surely copy and paste FR word for word over to LostPrivileges.com.

Fred is gainfully employed.

[justshe]

~~~The trolling was done by the poster of this thread. This compromise vs. principle issue is being debated on in, gee, I don't know, almost every thread on FR.~~~

---

If you have a problem with the poster of this thread....why not take it up with him?

Personally, I would much rather read Reagan's words than 75% of the vanities that are being posted with increasing regularity on these boards.

Now.....do you have anything to ADD to the discussion? Or are you still trolling and baiting?

[Howlin]

And I left around post #130 or something like that.

Goodness, you came back with that "alibi" *just* a little too quick, don't you think?

Who would MY male buddies be?

[AAABEST]

Now.....do you have anything to ADD to the discussion? Or are you still trolling and baiting?

SG is one of the most mild mannered posters on this board, I've never seen him out of line. You're twice the "troll" he is....woman.

[Sir Gawain]

Goodness, you came back with that "alibi" *just* a little too quick, don't you think?

Did I? I didn't think so.

Who would MY male buddies be?

Hmm, maybe "buddies" was too strong. Anyway, another day. ;-)

[Miss Marple]

Well, I see the usual suspects are here.

Why do you suppose people on the right are so nasty about Arnold? Regardless of his position on issues, whether he is conservative, moderate, or liberal, doesn't he have a right to run?

What is it that they are so upset about? Either he will win or he won't. If he loses, it will mean that either Davis is retained or one of the other candidates wins.

Now if Davis wins, nothing changes. However, Arnold being in the race makes it almost certain that Davis will be recalled.

If Arnold loses to another Republican who is more conservative, then the right wing of the Republicans in California will be vindicated.

But if Arnold wins, Davis is out and those who have spent the last three years screaming about how no moderates have been ignored will have been proven wrong.

And we can't have people like Rush be wrong, now could we?

[AAABEST]

That is so beneath you.

?

Someone who thinks that something is "beneath" me?! Boy you really are still my friend aren't you!?

:)

[justshe]

Uh......do I know you?

[Howlin]

That's my whole point, AAA. It's not like you to say stuff like that.

That's more MY style. :-)

[Howlin]

Ah, pressed for an answer, he departs.

[justshe]

Well......Mark's argument about what constitutes 'compromise' fell flat......so I think he cut and run.

[Sir Gawain]

Sorry, I can't stay all day.

[AAABEST]

I'll have you know that I have a reputation as one of the biggest a-holes on this forum. My crass stupidity is legendary.

[AAABEST]

Uh......do I know you?

You know me well enough to call me a "musket carrying" something or other when CJ pinged you to one of my comments the other day.

I don't think we've met in RL however, I also don't own a musket.

[Howlin]

Wanna arm wrestle over it?

[justshe]

Want to buy MY musket?

[Amelia]

I just find it interesting that a unknown Canadian nobody has the nerve to question the "credibility" of heavy hitters such as Rush and Mark Levin, and do it to his face no less.

I love watching Mark on Hannity and Colmes, but are you really saying that none of us here should be allowed to question his posts?

I generally agree with Mark, but I don't think any of us is infallible and I think sometimes Mark goes a bit overboard on the rhetoric - as do many of us, from time to time.

[CyberAnt]

Agreed! And .. my argument for McClintock is that he's been there in the trenches fighting for us for quite some time - he hasn't just flown into the state with a big splash.