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

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 161-170 next last
To: SoConPubbie

“Reagan’s immigration law had tough enforcement measures that were never enforced.”

Which, of course, is why we don’t trust anyone in DC with this issue. We accepted amnesty because we thought it would clean up a leak that had been fixed. Instead, the leak was never fixed, and the plumber got paid anyway, and now the same plumber wants to fix it plus send a much larger bill this time.


61 posted on 12/02/2007 10:18:06 AM PST by TWohlford
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: roses of sharon

> 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.

They all fought the tide of the mushmouth RINOs. They did not aid and abet them. RINOs have been aided and abetted by people who were willing to settle for unholy compromises again and again, giving ground to the point where our position is tenuous indeed.

Even if I cannot always win, I will always fight for what is right. I’m not willing to get boiled like the proverbial frog who stays in the gradually heating water.

What’s your solution? Lie back and enjoy the slide into the high-spending, big government, amoral tide, merely because an “R” has been stapled to it?

For my part, if there is breath in me, I fight.


62 posted on 12/02/2007 10:29:16 AM PST by VictoryGal (Never give up, never surrender!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58
Just another of many contrived stories trying to get people to vote for the rino’s.
63 posted on 12/02/2007 10:40:02 AM PST by org.whodat (What's the difference between a Democrat and a republican????)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VictoryGal
So I don’t consider those that spoke against Reagan at that time as conservatives.
[...]
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.

I'm with you there! :-)

64 posted on 12/02/2007 10:45:18 AM PST by Gondring (I'll give up my right to die when hell freezes over my dead body!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Balding_Eagle

The fallocy of Reagan being pro-abortion has been discredited many, many times here on FR.

Reagan signed a law in 1967, his first year as govenor, allowing “therapeutic” abortion is VERY limited instances, mother’s life/health/etc.

He was assured by his aides Lyn Nofsinger and Ed Meese that the legislation would result in only a handful of abortions each year.

Abortionists exploited this new law, basically performing them on demand.

One year later, Reagan told his staff that he would never have signed the bill had he known what was going to happen.

He said that signing the bill was the ‘greatest mistake’ as governor and would never had done it if he was a more expeienced executive.


65 posted on 12/02/2007 10:45:53 AM PST by Mr. Brightside
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58

I never voted for Reagan on his ideology or his ideologic purity. I voted for Reagan because I thought he could lead and I TRUSTED him. History validates me and millions upon millions of the others who voted for Reagan.


66 posted on 12/02/2007 10:46:28 AM PST by Biblebelter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58
"Today's Republicans might not elect Reagan"

Without question, the media would call Reagan a bigot and today's decidedly more liberal electorate would have nominated Bush I or Baker as GOP nominee.

The Silent Majority left over from the Nixon days elected Reagan as a counter reaction to the excesses of the 60s, 70s and Carter. The the Moral Majority picked up the slack.

Now the first group is gone and the second is dying off quick.

Now ...the most conservative bloc is my group....white ...Christian....Southern and married with kids....male or female ....and we are dwindling too

67 posted on 12/02/2007 10:48:30 AM PST by wardaddy (former shrew tamer who has given up and decided to be subservient)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Brightside

The article doesn’t say Reagan was pro-abortion, it says he was for abortion rights before he was against them.


68 posted on 12/02/2007 10:48:46 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 65 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58

69 posted on 12/02/2007 10:50:31 AM PST by fieldmarshaldj (~~~Jihad Fever -- Catch It !~~~ (Backup tag: "Live Fred or Die"))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58

Reagan gets a bum rap on the abortion bill he signed. People keep reporting that he approved of open ended legal abortion, which isn’t true. The bill he signed only permitted abortion when the mother’s life or health were at stake. It was only supposed to permit abortions when the mother was literally bleeding to death or something like that. Bureaucrats and judges later “interpreted” the word “health” to mean things like depression and disappointment (i.e., she’ll be upset if she doesn’t get the abortion so her “health” is at risk) and it ended up being “abortion on demand”, but that wasn’t Reagan’s intention when he signed the bill.

The amnesty bill Reagan signed was in retrospect a mistake, but at the time it seemed like a fair compromise. The bill gave amnesty to around three million illegals, and in return the feds were supposed to strictly enforce our border laws so that we never ended up with three million illegals living here again. If the latter part had worked, it wouldn’t have been a bad deal, but we now know that A) the amnesty only encouraged more foreigners to sneak into the country and B) enforcement of our border laws were relaxed, not tightened.

Reagan would recognize that his 1986 amnesty was a mistake if he were alive today.


70 posted on 12/02/2007 10:53:07 AM PST by puroresu (Enjoy ASIAN CINEMA? See my Freeper page for recommendations (updated!).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Balding_Eagle

A distinction without a difference.


71 posted on 12/02/2007 10:55:47 AM PST by Mr. Brightside
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58
Judging from this attack on Former President Reagan, it would certainly appear the Republican Party is going to nominate a Conservative, backed up (I hope) by another Conservative in the Veep slot. There would be no need for this attack, by the author, if the rudy, mitt, mccain, huck crowd was gaining strength. Fear of Conservatives, alway brought and still brings these types of attacks. I still believe this Nation is the most Conservative Nation, on the face of the earth. The liberals cannot win, when their agenda is placed before the people, therefore the liberals utilize the courts to push their agenda forward.

Former President Reagan was a Man of the people (all the people). This fact alone scares the liberals to death. Given the opportunity, this Nation, a Conservative Nation will vote Conservative at every vote. The American People are not idiots as this author actually wants to say. Instead, the common woman and man, the silent ones, are highly intelligent. Conservatism works, every time it is tried. Want to scare a liberal? Vote for Conservatives!

Why else would this author attack one of the Greatest Presidents of this age?

Normal Operating Procedure, from liberals.

72 posted on 12/02/2007 10:56:07 AM PST by no-to-illegals (God Bless Our Men and Women in Uniform, Our Heroes. And Vote For Mr. Duncan Hunter, America! TLWNW)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Balding_Eagle

Read more here:

Adamantly pro-choice? Ronald Reagan and abortion in 1967.
RedState.com ^ | Aug. 22, 2007 | Mark Kilmer

Posted on 08/23/2007 7:40:29 AM EDT by Josh Painter

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1885297/posts

______________________________________________

And here:

Adamantly pro-choice? Ronald Reagan and abortion in 1967.

The governor is innocent of Romney’s charge.

http://www.redstate.com/stories/elections/2008/adamantly_pro_choice_ronald_reagan_and_abortion_in_1967


73 posted on 12/02/2007 11:02:17 AM PST by Mr. Brightside
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Balding_Eagle

Here are Reagan’s own words:

“Now, with regard to the permissive bill I supposedly signed, let me give you the correct history of what took place early in my term as governor.

“A bill was introduced that was permissive, indeed was abortion on demand. Naturally, there was great controversy about this bill. The author finally sent word that he would amend his bill to anything the governor would sign. Faced with this responsibility, I probably did more study and more soul searching on the subject that I had done on anything in my eight years as governor.

“I came to the conclusion, as I have already stated, that it [abortion] could only be justified to save a human life. The matter of health—meaning the permanent damage to the health of the mother if she went through with her pregnancy—was brought up.

“It seemed to me that the mother would have the right to protect herself from permanent damage just as she would be able to protect herself, even if it meant taking a life, from someone threatening her with mayhem, so I agreed to that provision. I thought there was adequate provision in the bill requiring responsible boards in the medical profession to declare such permanent harm would follow the birth of the child.

“Perhaps it was my inexperience in government, but, like so many pieces of legislation, there were loopholes that I had not seen, and the thing that made the California abortion bill become somewhat permissive in nature was violation of the spirit of the legislation by the groups that were supposed to police it.

“This was particularly true in the case of psychiatrists. If faced with the same problem today, I can assure you I would make sure there were no loopholes in the bill.”


74 posted on 12/02/2007 11:03:40 AM PST by Mr. Brightside
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Lazarus Longer
“The days of seeing the GOP candidate win 49 states are long gone, sad to say.”

Quite true, and yes, it is sad. The MSM has done a good job of convincing people that conservatives are right wing kooks. And what’s more sad is the fact that many conservatives have bought into this lie. How else can you explain the fact that a good number of FReepers here are willing to vote for one of the most liberal "republicans" who’s ever run for president? Now that’s really SAD.

75 posted on 12/02/2007 11:07:29 AM PST by dmw (Aren't you glad you use common sense? Don't you wish everybody did?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: petercooper
What will the 100%’ers say about this piece

They will come up with something...never speechless are they.

76 posted on 12/02/2007 11:09:34 AM PST by Hildy (Faith is the bird that sings when the dawn is still dark.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58

btt


77 posted on 12/02/2007 11:12:36 AM PST by Cacique (quos Deus vult perdere, prius dementat ( Islamia Delenda Est ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Brightside

Well, did he or didn’t he sign the bill for abortion rights?

It seems to me he did, and nothing you posted refutes that fact.

That’s what the writer pointed out.

You may not like it, and it’s obvious Reagan regretted it, but the theme of the entire piece is about changes in politicians political lives.


78 posted on 12/02/2007 11:18:07 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 74 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58

Yup, so damn true it hurts. We’re attcking Huckabee and McCain, heck the whole field. Honorable conservatives for the most part. We may as well as hand the election to the dems.


79 posted on 12/02/2007 11:24:17 AM PST by AirForceGeorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Balding_Eagle
Plus several unwritten, between the lines themes. Looks like the author knows, Conservatives are again looking at nominating Conservatives in the Republican Party, plus other assorted messages which scare liberals endlessly. This hit piece is a scare tactic. Liberals accuse Conservatives of using scare tactics to be elected, when actually, as the author wrote using his scare tactics, the liberals are the guilty ones.....mho

Example....from the author....
Through it all, they ignore the real Reagan

Apparantly this author knew not the Man, his passions, nor his ability to tell the American People, the truth.

I am inspired....The author just did more damage to the liberals, if this piece is widely read, than the liberals constantly do to themselves.

80 posted on 12/02/2007 11:33:53 AM PST by no-to-illegals (God Bless Our Men and Women in Uniform, Our Heroes. And Vote For Mr. Duncan Hunter, America! TLWNW)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 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