Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Today's Republicans might not elect Reagan
McClatchy Washington Bureau ^ | November 30, 2007 | Steven Thomma

Posted on 12/02/2007 9:28:01 AM PST by Graybeard58

WASHINGTON — They want to put his face on Mount Rushmore, but Republicans today are demanding such ideological purity that they might not even nominate Ronald Reagan for president if he were to run now.

Abortion? He was for abortion rights before he was against them.

Taxes? He raised them as governor, and raised them several times as president after his big 1981 tax cuts.

Immigration? He signed the law that Republicans now call amnesty for illegals.

Foreign policy? He negotiated with the head of the "Evil Empire."

In fact, they'd find him wrong on almost every hot-button issue of the 2008 campaign.

Most of those stands are overlooked in the Republicans' idealized rear-view idolization of Reagan as an unwavering conservative icon. But they serve as a reminder that even the revered Reagan was a pragmatic politician whose stands often changed and might not fit in today's politics.

The real Reagan story is forgotten as Republicans this year attack one another for past offenses even if they've moved toward conservative orthodoxy since. They criticize Mitt Romney for once supporting abortion rights, though he now opposes them. They tear into Mike Huckabee for raising some taxes as governor, ignoring his vow not to raise them as president. They rip Rudy Giuliani for once welcoming illegal immigrants to New York, though he takes a hard line now.

Through it all, they ignore the real Reagan.

"Their memories of Reagan are very selective," said Steven Schier, a political scientist at Carleton College in Minnesota. "In some ways, they're creating a standard that is not real, that did not happen, and holding each other to that standard. I don't think Reagan himself would do well in this environment."

Take abortion.

Romney is routinely criticized as a flip-flopper for changing from a supporter of abortion rights to an opponent while governor of Massachusetts. But regardless of whether his switch was born of principle or political expedience, he did change to the position that most Republican profess to want.

His defense is simple. He changed his mind, he says, "just like Ronald Reagan did."

He's right, to a degree.

As the governor of California, Reagan signed a 1967 law that allowed abortions in the state six years before the Supreme Court legalized them nationwide.

Author and Reagan biographer Lou Cannon noted that Reagan made that decision in a vastly different time, before the issue had become such an emotional flash point.

"Reagan had never considered the issue," Cannon said.

The party was more libertarian in philosophy then, and a top Republican in the state Senate predicted that the bill would put the issue behind them, so Reagan signed it. He changed his mind later, and told Cannon he wouldn't have signed the bill a year later.

"Hell, all these people change positions," Cannon said, "and legitimately so."

Or consider taxes.

Huckabee's rivals and the anti-tax group Club for Growth are attacking him for raising taxes while he was the governor of Arkansas. Yet he's promised not to raise taxes as president, and cites Reagan as proof that a politician can change.

"If Reagan were running today," Huckabee said this week, "the Club for Growth would be running ads against him because he raised taxes by a billion when he was governor of California."

Indeed, Reagan did sign a billion-dollar tax increase while he was governor in 1967. As president, he also signed several tax increases that offset some of his historic 1981 cut in federal income taxes.

Consider illegal immigration.

Giuliani and Romney snipe at each other over their records on this issue, accusing each other of offering "sanctuary" to illegal immigrants in New York City and Massachusetts.

Yet Reagan effectively turned the United States into a sanctuary when he signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, which gave amnesty to illegals who were already here.

There were other times as well when Reagan took positions that would draw attacks in today's Republican presidential campaign.

Never withdraw troops? He pulled them out of Lebanon in 1984 after a suicide bomber killed 241 U.S. Marines.

Talk to our enemies? He personally negotiated and signed deals with a Soviet regime that he himself called the Evil Empire.

Curiously, he was able to thrive in his time in part because he hadn't yet unified the modern Republican Party in his conservative image.

He named Sandra Day O'Connor to the Supreme Court, for example, and she later became the swing vote in upholding the right to abortion. He probably couldn't get away with that appointment today, just as President George W. Bush was forced to withdraw his nomination of Harriet Miers because he couldn't assure conservatives that she'd oppose abortion from the bench.

For now, much of the sniping over today's candidates' records reflects a close, wide-open race in which all of those running are desperate to prove their conservative credentials and to discredit their rivals.

Ultimately, said Grover Norquist, a conservative strategist and Reagan devotee, the Republicans should learn to look forward rather than back, and welcome those who move to the right.

"I am not a critic of those who say they once did a bad thing and are not going to do that anymore," Norquist said in an interview. "A successful political movement accepts converts. The Catholic Church doesn't say, 'If you weren't with us 10 years ago, you can't be with us now.' I am very much in favor of accepting converts."


TOPICS: Extended News; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: elections; fredthompson; giuliani; huckabee; mittromney; romney
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 161-170 next last
To: Graybeard58
Immigration? He signed the law that Republicans now call amnesty for illegals.

The author also distorts and spins on this as well.

Reagan's immigration law had tough enforcement measures that were never enforced.

Also, Reagan did not have a previous failed Amnesty bill to guage against. I sincerely doubt, given his intelligence and fidelity to principle that if he were President today he would be pushing for the same thing. My guess is that he would now be going for an enforcement only bill.

And since the last time we tried this it did not work, tell me why we would try it again?
41 posted on 12/02/2007 10:05:02 AM PST by SoConPubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58
"I am not a critic of those who say they once did a bad thing and are not going to do that anymore," Norquist said in an interview. "A successful political movement accepts converts. The Catholic Church doesn't say, 'If you weren't with us 10 years ago, you can't be with us now.' I am very much in favor of accepting converts."

Right, Grover , Muslim radicals, illegal aliens....this guy is one of the biggest reasons we are in the mess we're in today and yes, he wants unlimited illegal and legal immigration and any rotten trade deal to be had.

42 posted on 12/02/2007 10:05:32 AM PST by AuntB (" It takes more than walking across the border to be an American." Duncan Hunter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
A pity they don't have much traction. People are looking for someone who is a winner. They go with the strong horse - every time.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

43 posted on 12/02/2007 10:05:48 AM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58

And it would seem that from many of the posts that the USA has taken a turn for the worse under the “Republicanism” of the two Bushes. Perhaps Reagan’s original political perceptions would have been better than the “New Republicanism” of the two Bushes.


44 posted on 12/02/2007 10:07:37 AM PST by Rati0nal1st (Reagan's early policies better than the "New Republicanism")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
It often forgotten Reagan changed his views. If we demand people who never change their views, heck we wouldn't welcome Ronald Reagan today. He's not "pure enough" to be an authentic conservative.

Noone is going to argue that point, however, what you forgot to talk about is this: Why should we trust somebody's conversion if it is done to win political office?

Rudy, Mitt, and the Huckster have changed their positions in a major way in the last two years just prior to announcing their campaigns for the Presidency.

Tell me again why we should trust these conversions?
45 posted on 12/02/2007 10:07:37 AM PST by SoConPubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58

Reagan signed the 1986 amnesty legislation in part because those supporting that amnesty in Congress, including Ted Kennedy, promised there would be no more amnesties. Ted Kennedy lied. Twenty years later he was working with John McCain, Lindsay Graham, Mel Martinez and other Republican senators to give amnesty to twenty to thirty million illegal aliens.


46 posted on 12/02/2007 10:07:49 AM PST by arnoldpalmerfan (Tancredo for President 2008 - www.electtancredo.com and www.teamtancredo.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cold Heat
Very apparent, especially after 06 when “macaca” brought down a good Conservative Senator because he received no support, no defense, no push back, only derision as an idiot and lofty derision saying "well, he and his campaign certainly were not handling it very well", lol!

Good grief, Webb was heralded here and in Rightwing media consistently.


And when Conservatives had our stunning victory in 94, they were not defended, but were told "you trying to do to much", "you didn't handle it well", and many lost in 96!

47 posted on 12/02/2007 10:09:14 AM PST by roses of sharon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie
Bad math, as a portion of the tax hike was a one time surcharge.

We have a Constitutionally mandated balanced budget in Arkansas. The legislature, run by Dem's, refused to make the cuts needed to balance it, and thus the tax hike occurred. The Governor cut all he could from the Governors office,(chump change small office with even less power) but could not do anything about the pork, the teacher pay raise and the Medicaid programs.

Since politics is a blood sport here, and the Democrats run the show, they blamed the governor for the tax hike.

BTW, we had a surplus after he left office, and it turned out that the projections done by the Dem's were wrong.

48 posted on 12/02/2007 10:10:46 AM PST by Cold Heat (Mitt....2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Cold Heat

You sir, are dead on.

I loved Ronald Reagan for the good things he did, but he was no Conservative the way the folks around here define it.

He pulled out of Lebanon after the Marine barracks were bombed.

He appointed two moderates (Kennedy and O’Connor) and two conservative (Rhenquist and Scalia) to the Supreme Court. That’s a 50% record partially by pandering to the feminists.

He raised taxes as part of a bargain with Democrats (he should have known by then that Democrats never keep their bargains).

He gave amnesty to illegals (once again after bargaining with Democrats).

He was divorced and had one gay son and one extremely Liberal daughter. He supported gay rights at least to some degree.

The balance...He freed the world from the yoke of Communism and won the “unwinable” Cold War.

Isn’t it amazing that he didn’t receive the Nobel Prize for Peace, but Gorby did? -end sarcasm- Nobel Joke prize!!!


49 posted on 12/02/2007 10:11:15 AM PST by Sudetenland (Liberals love "McCarthyism," they just believe he was targeting the wrong side.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator
1980 and 1984 is not 2008.

No doubt. The country is a lot more liberal now. The days of seeing the GOP candidate win 49 states are long gone, sad to say.

50 posted on 12/02/2007 10:11:19 AM PST by Mr. Mojo (“Be wary of strong drink. It can make you shoot at tax collectors and miss.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58

mark


51 posted on 12/02/2007 10:11:36 AM PST by sauropod ("A man never stands so tall as when he stoops to kiss ***" - Paul Begala on pandering)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58
I have always believed that if Reagan was President today he will be savagely attacked in each passing hour by some of the “Absolutists” and “Purists” on our side, as much as they are attacking President Bush.
52 posted on 12/02/2007 10:12:17 AM PST by jveritas (God bless our brave troops and President Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie
No one can say if they're doing it out of conviction or opportunism. Politics is that business that doesn't make any one in it coming out looking good. The rare politician who is truly principled comes along once in a generation. That's why people revere Reagan so much. They don't see any one today who resembles him. Besides a giant oak, we have a field of acorns. The state of the present GOP field.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

53 posted on 12/02/2007 10:12:31 AM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Gondring

But what does “pro-life candidate” have to mean? What do you expect a president to do?

Support the life amendment at the very least.


54 posted on 12/02/2007 10:12:42 AM PST by napscoordinator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Brightside

Why is that a lie?

The article give a great deal of supporting evidence for that statement.


55 posted on 12/02/2007 10:13:05 AM PST by Balding_Eagle (If America falls, darkness will cover the face of the earth for a thousand years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58

Given a choice between Jimmy Carter and Ron Reagan, you think we’d for for Carter?!?!

Or do you think we’d vote for Bush the Elder, whose conservative credentials were worse, and was part of the blue-blood “moderate” Rockerfeller Republicans?

Stories like this are bure pullsh*t. They don’t put things into historical prospective, and in fact, twist history to “prove” a contemporary point.


56 posted on 12/02/2007 10:13:24 AM PST by TWohlford
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazarus Longer

The days of seeing the GOP candidate win 49 states are long gone, sad to say.

That can happen again if we pick a conservative President. We have not done that since Reagan. Duncan his second term could do that.


57 posted on 12/02/2007 10:14:14 AM PST by napscoordinator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Gondring

> You might not be recalling the primary season, during which the establishment supported George H.W. Bush, not Reagan. Reagan was more conservative than Bush, but many who considered themselves “conservative” supported Bush because he was more in favor of big government.

I do recall the primary season. It could be that my experience is colored by how Reagan electrified my father (a WWII vet, staunchly pro-freedom, capitalist, patriot, conservative, the best Dad ever :-). He also recognized the GOP insiders then just as he sees them today: as weak from the apologizing (e.g. Nixon aftermath) and ready to sell out their principles for a buck, the Rockefeller mushmouths.

So I don’t consider those that spoke against Reagan at that time as conservatives. I know that Reagan spoke to the best of us all, championed America without apology, freedom... especially from Big Government, which had wrapped its tentacles around all our throats. And he spoke plainly — not in lawyer-speak, codicils, qualifications, mushy triangulation. He said what he meant and he meant what he said.

Reagan changed the game. It was a special and turbulent time. I would give anything to feel that soaring hope again as I did in 1980.


58 posted on 12/02/2007 10:14:22 AM PST by VictoryGal (Never give up, never surrender!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: VictoryGal
Yes, I notice that Duncan Hunter, Fred Thompson, Tom Tancrado, Ron Paul, all our BEST conservatives running have all been in government serving for decades in the majority and minority, while all your listed sins were being committed.
59 posted on 12/02/2007 10:15:15 AM PST by roses of sharon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Rati0nal1st

Imagine if Reagan had chosen Cheney as VP.


60 posted on 12/02/2007 10:17:31 AM PST by Balding_Eagle (If America falls, darkness will cover the face of the earth for a thousand years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 161-170 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson