Posted on 12/26/2007 9:44:03 PM PST by traviskicks
On Christmas Day, I glanced at the memorabilia from my years in politics. The photos and notes from Newt Gingrich. Candid shots of me with the likes of Jimmy Carter and of the brilliant mastermind of his presidential victory, Hamilton Jordan. Next were shots of me posing with Bill Clinton and then with both President Bushes.
And oh yes, here was a young U.S. Senate aide Matt Towery with one Ronald Reagan. Everyone knows there are plenty of people with photos of themselves with politicians. And there are loads of people who were close to Reagan. Many of them have both the credentials and the motives -- especially the motives -- to refute what I am about to write. Certainly my friends who still consider themselves respected experts and D.C. insiders would never dare write what follows. They would be cast off into the outer circles of the political establishment.
Personally, I could care less. So here goes. Reagan was once an Iowan. He once broadcast University of Iowa football games, and he later was "discovered" by Hollywood when living in Des Moines.
It is my personal belief that if Reagan were alive and living in Iowa today, and he had to choose among the Republican presidential candidates, that he would likely choose the man the GOP establishment and national media have written off -- Congressman Ron Paul.
To begin with, there is little doubt that for at least foreign policy, Reagan was basically a non-interventionist. He bragged about the fact that the United States did not occupy foreign countries. He stressed in virtually every speech about the "Evil Empire" of the Soviet Union that they must be brought down, but not by use of force or war. When provoked by Libya's Muammar al-Qaddafi, the Osama bin Laden of the 1980s, Reagan used strategic bombing next to the quarters in which al-Qaddafi was sleeping to bring the brash "terrorist" to his knees.
Even the vicious murder of more than 200 troops in Lebanon did not provoke invasion or war. Instead, Reagan removed U.S. presence there in order to cool down an ultra-hot situation. Oh yes, we did invade Grenada. More a military exercise than a true battle.
As for domestic policy, again Reagan's philosophy seems closer to that of Paul's than any other Republican candidate today. Reagan constantly railed against big government. In speech after speech, he emphasized the need to adhere to the Constitution, and to respect the powers of the individual states. Sound familiar?
As for some of Dr. Paul's more far-fetched positions, they may be "out there," but it wasn't hard for me to find quotes from Reagan that reflected nearly the same sentiments. For example, Paul's concerns about a monetary system based on something closer and closer to worthless paper was similarly expressed by Reagan as early as 1964 when he stumped for Barry Goldwater for president.
In a speech that year, Reagan expressed concerns about America losing its monetary independence. And, eerily, he alluded to fears about foreign nations owning American currency.
As I try to remind my friends who were around in 1980, Reagan was considered by the mainstream Republican establishment to be as kooky as many label Paul as being.
Gerald Ford in 1980 was quoted in Time Magazine as saying that Reagan was "unelectable." It is no wonder that when Reagan challenged Ford some four years earlier for the GOP nomination, Paul was one of only a handful of sitting congressmen who supported Reagan's effort.
What Paul lacks is Reagan's movie-star looks, and the credibility that comes with having been governor of California. Even without those attributes, Paul has managed to become the first Republican candidate I've seen since 1980 that can draw huge crowds so devoted to their candidate that they seem almost cult-like in their zeal. Believe it or not, that's what we thought of the Reagan crowds that gathered early in his bid for president in 1980.
The fact is that Reagan tamed both his rhetoric and the implementation of his agenda to meet the realities of the presidency. My guess is that were Ron Paul to have such a chance, he would inevitably do the same.
I still believe that between the Republican Party's longing to appear "mainstream" and the national political media's fear of appearing to give in to "fringe elements," that Paul's quest for the nomination will fall far short in the end.
But as I have said before, Lord help both parties if he decides to run as a third-party candidate. They may not like what he might say, but he would darn sure say it.
As Reagan said once said when a debate moderator cut him short, "I paid for this microphone." Paul might just buy one of his own.
read
No, Reagan wouldn’t have supported a certified nutball like Ron Paul at any point in his life.
Absolutely correct, at least in the beginning.
After the Primary in New Hampshire, Reagan then changed tack completely and fired his advisors then and hired globablists.
He also appointed globablists to his Cabinet.
So unfortunately, it did not last.
Please site examples of when Reagan accused fellow Gop’ers of being facist and or Nazis.
Enjoy your short stay here at FR, newbie.
Ron Paul exploits others... bait and switch
So what if Ron Paul has a photo with Ronald Reagan.
Ron Paul is no Ronald Reagan.
First, Ronald Reagan was a interventionalist. Look at helping the Contras and sending troops in Grenada.
Ronald Reagan increase military spending to put pressure on the Soviets.
And of course our CIA involvement in Afghanistan.
“Paul is an anarchist? Please give an example of his positions to back up that charge.”
For starters I think Ronald Reagan would protect our children from predators....just because its important to keep our children safe.
Ron Paul voted against the Amber Bill because he felt it was unconstitutional....and its not the federal governments job to intervene.....
http://chip91.wordpress.com/families-children/
Imagine if you left the Amber alert to the States....authorities would be squabbling over who had what jurisdiction while the sexual predator runs off with your child over the state lines.
Its all anarchist madness......I won’t be voting for a mad man.
“Um... Paul’s is worse (82).”
Right. But Paul is a libertarian, who also has a much stronger rating on illegal immigration than Thompson. Plus, Paul has voted to eliminate Gov’t agencies such as the Dept. of Ed. and Federal Welfare. Thompson hasn’t.
While those stands may not be considered “conservative” by today’s standards, those things are what I personally care about most, and on those issues, he’s way to the right of Thompson.
Sad but true.
As predicted, another imposter gets banned. What a surprise.
Not in the primary but yes if he ran against any of the Dems.
OTOH, Dr. Demento (paleoPaulie, El Run Paul, etc.) would not carry a plurality of the GOP vote if his life depended on it. His nomination (ROFLMAO) would doom the GOP and the underticket to a landslide loss of Biblical proportions. That is just one of many reasons why the paleosurrenderman's destruction as a candidate begins with tomorrow's Iowa caucuses even though the usual gang of antiwar, antiAmerican Demonrat suspects will cast votes for him as though they and he were Americans, patriots and Republicans which, obviously, they are not.
Duchess 47: No one needs to bother to read paleoPaulie's ravings because most of us have seen all too much of them. He yaks and yaks and yaks and NEVER accomplishes ANYTHING! Nor does he intend to accomplish anything. He is best at posing for holy pictures while doing the opposite of what he claims to advocate. In the posted excerpt from his book (the paleopipsqueak's first farewell address), the cut 'n' flee in terror Congresscritter criticizes tobacco subsidies (fair enough) but he is a BIG advocate of shrimpin' subsidies. I don't see shrimp subsidies as an enumerated power of Congress but he poses as a "constitutionalist." For those who want cowardice as a foreign policy, Afghanistan, according to Dr. Demento, is a conflict to authorize but Iraq and VietNam were not, at least according to the pretend "constitutionalist.
At least, his Congressional constituents in the GOP will either reject him for Chris Peden or have to take personal responsibility for nominating this despicable lunatic as though he were Republican. The sooner that the old paleopoltroon is driven from public life the better. Maybe you guys can run Weepy Walter Jones of North Carolina next time since paleoPaulie will be too old and Upchuck Hegel has already shown himself too realistic to imagine being re-elected to the Senate much less to the White House.
As to why many revile Galveston's paleodimwit, many of us had more than a bellyful of the antiwar crapola during the VietNam War and are not about to "learn the lesson" of imitating the communist opposition who were led by George McGovern. Wars are often necessary. Those who don't like it do not have to make believe that they believe otherwise. They have no business, however, posing as "conservatives."
Even RM did appoint "globalists" to his cabinet and that was unfortunate. RM did often express his belief in the principle of "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer." See his acceptance of of Robert Finch as Lieutenant Governor in 1966-1970 as to the latter type. One problem with the paleocowards (the neo-Neville Chamberlains really) is their absolute refusal to distinguish between the international treaty and diployakkity-yak obsessed "globalists" or "internationalists" and other "citizen of the world" types OTOH and INTERVENTIONISTS (why, when, where and how WE please without a by-your-leave to the UN or other nations).
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.