Posted on 08/18/2003 7:12:07 PM PDT by churchillbuff
Edited on 04/12/2004 5:56:04 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Maybe in Texas no one is making the comparison, but it's being done constantly in California. Nofziger isn't heading off anything, he's commenting on a common theme.
Arnold's dad did, after all, hold a membership in the Nazi party.
"In his campaign for governor, Reagan spoke against higher taxes and urged that state spending be trimmed. Yet during his eight years in office, the state budget increased from $4.6 billion to $10.2 billion. Much of the increase, however, was designed to raise state revenues in order to relieve local governments of the burden of increased costs of welfare and education. The portion of the state budget earmarked for aid to local governments grew from $5 billion to $7.8 billion, and this state aid permitted the lowering of local property taxes. Reagan contended that the tax hikes, all of which came in his first year in office, were necessitated by the "near bankruptcy" in which he found the state after assuming control from Governor Brown."
Reagan left the Governor's office with California firmly in the black.
While Reagan did liberalize California's abortion laws, he said it was the worst decision of his political career. I tend to believe him. Arnold supports abortion on demand.
The real question is, why do you find it necessary to attack Reagan, in order to build up a liberal Republican like Arnold Schwarzenegger?
Not really.
If pointing out Reagan's record is "attacking Reagan," then I guess I'm guilty.
Nofziger is the one attacking Arnold, and he's not being entirely forthcoming with some of Reagan's early positions as governor.
I don't live in California, so I don't get to vote.
That is just not true. In all regular elections (not this recall fiasco) the center or swing voters decide the winner.
Of the 10 million voters in today's California, 4 million are Democrats and it takes more than 5 million votes to win a regular election. Gray Davis purposely and Simon stupidly helped Gray drive the center away in 2002. That gave Davis the win. Lyn tried to teach Simple Simon how to win the center... center Simon could not win without. Simple Simon would not listen.
There are as I said 4 million Democrat voters in California. There are 3 million Republicans. that leaves 3 million centrists up for grabs. For a republican to win in 1966 he had to do what a republican most do to win California in 2004. He must structure his arguments to win 2/3 of the centrists.
The CENTER IS NOT IDEOLOGICAL. They are the swing voters. Sometimes they vote for the right and other times they vote for the left. Some people conclude that sometimes the centrists are Leftists and then 2 or four years later they go for the Conservative pitch .... only to change their minds again at the next election. But that does not explain how the centrists will vote for a very conservative Senator and a very Liberal Governor in the very same election.
Duhhhh... Centrists, sometimes called swing voters, do not vote on ideology. Get that.. swing voters are not persuaded by ideology. About half of them vote for the most likable candidate and the other half votes for the candidate that will do the most for them. Negative attacks drive centrists away from the polls. If your opponent goes negative and you stay positive, the center moves toward YOU. When both go negative the center goes away. You can't win anywhere in the country with out the votes of the center.
Reagan was a MASTER at getting the centrists to vote for him. They liked him and they liked his centrists arguments. Anyone who says Reagan could not win today in California today hasn't studied how Reagan won that election in 1966. Tom Brokaw was the anchor at KNBC in 1966 and he was amazed at how Reagan was able to appeal to the center. Reagan was not amazed. He knew how to do it. The center today is not much different than the center was in 1966. They are still non ideological.
The fact that no conservative candidate in California since Reagan has had the brains or skills to appeal to the center, does not prove Reagan could not win the center again.
Let me give you an example of a pitch to garner right wing votes and the way the same policy would be pitched to gain support from the center. They are differnt pitches for the same exact policy. Lets call this policy an ideological name. Lets call it "Cut Marginal Tax Rates."
A policy or promising to cut marginal tax rates will appeal the ideological right and repel the ideological left. It will not motivate a centrist one way or the other.
Let me repeat that... a candidate can scream cut taxes or cut tax rates or cut marginal tax rates for hours and not move a centrist. But use the magic words Ronald reagan used and it will.
Reagan asked, "Why is it better to send your money to Washington for the politicians to spend as they see fit, rather than let you keep your own money and spend it as you see fit?". That pitch had the centrist voting for Ronald Reagan.
If you don't see the difference then you don't know how to convince centrists to vote for your candidate.
It was this type of distinction that Lyn tried to teach Simple Simon in 2002. Simon was and is way too stupid to understand how to win the support of center. It has a lot to do with the the techniques used to pitch the policy. And has a lot less to do with the ideology of the policy itself. Simple Simon was convinced that negative attacks and right wig pitches would win the center because those pitches appealed to Simple Simon.
When you say Reagan could not get elected today in California, you are saying the nation is more liberal than it was in 1980 or 1984. That is just not true. What is true is the right is full of candidates that only try to sell the right and never ever say things that will win the votes of the centrists.
Because he was an excellent candidate, and had the right ideas.
I agree with you. I do not buy the line that "Reagan couldn't be elected governor of California today". I think he could.
We would do well to remember that Schwarzenegger was and is a huge Reagan fan.
The we agree, you're guilty.
I thought Lyn Nofziger wrote a well balanced article and laid out the facts. After all, he was there with Reagan at the time. However, I don't believe he attacked Arnold.
If you want to run around FR defending a liberal Republican like Arnold Scharzenegger, feel free. Just don't expect conservatives to stand by without commenting.
Go back and read Ronald Reagans radio commentaries from 1964 until 1966. Then read his commentaries from 1975 and then from 1977 until 1979 and then say that again... if you can.
"Abraham Lincoln recognized that we could not survive as a free land when some men could decide that others were not fit to be free and should therefore be slaves. Likewise, we cannot survive as a free nation when some men decide that others are not fit to live and should be abandoned to abortion or infanticide. My Administration is dedicated to the preservation of America as a free land, and there is no cause more important for preserving that freedom than affirming the transcendent right to life of all human beings, the right without which no other rights have any meaning."
President Reagan wrote this article for Human Events magazine on the 10th anniversary of the USSC decision in Roe v Wade.
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.