Posted on 02/28/2008 5:53:13 PM PST by Dane
Watching CNN and they had a segment about talk radio's war against John McCain. After blowhard Bill Cunningham was done, they had Michael Reagan and Lars Larson and at the very end, Larson was praising Ronald Reagan and Michael Reagan stated that Ronald Reagan would support John McCain, and Larson said he wouldn't.
Talk radio is going over the deep end.
I just posted about this sonny, a couple of posts down.
famous words, Reagan said he didn’t leave the democrat party, it left him.
The republican party has LEFT ME... I will be a republican no more. Lars could be really right and Michael wrong.
Yep. Pretty sad when Larson knows more on what Reagan would do then his own son...and is 100% right. Maybe Reagan shouldn't be on radio
Reagan rallied behind Gerald Ford, fercryinoutloud.
I’m not thrilled at all about having to hold my nose and vote for McCain, and I fully expect him to lose, but he’s much better than Clinton or Obama. I’ll take a 60% conservative over a 0% conservative/100% Dhimmicrat (raving leftist).
Well, they both agreed who the best Reaganite was in the election - Duncan Hunter. No one seemed to care about their united opinion, so I reckon no one will care about this disagreement.
No matter how much I dislike McAmnesty- I have two words for Lars- Gerald Ford
Seems to me that is playing right into the hands of the rinos.Did you ever think that the reason mcnutts is the front runner is because the rinos and the rnc want him to lose?.This election is about one thing AMNESTY.
Conservatives didn't exist during the New Deal. It was created more or less by the intellectuals led by Bill Buckley (RIP) in the 1950s, and became a coherent and consistent set of beliefs, a philosophy of government. They had to fight a battle out on the wilderness of thought, scratching and clawing, gaining converts in small increments. But they had Reagan, and Reagan was the Great Convincer. He brought the party around, the voters, not the elites, and then he stormed into the White House, and then he proved that Conservatism had been right all those years.
What has happened since then? The counter-attack of the elites. They couldn't just dump Reaganism altogether right off the bat, they had to take it in stages. They made damn sure the process was set up such that they could have a great say in the result. Liberal, northern states starting out. Dems voting in GOP primaries. Always being nice to RINOs, even Specter, Chafee and Hagel.
So, Bush I starts right off saying he would give us a "kinder, gentler nation". Why not just turn and spit in Reagan's eye? Then they raised taxes. Perot, a Dem ploy, paid off and we got Clinton. Party elites responded with Bob Dole, who NEVER bought off on Reagan, fought him all the way. Bob Dole personally, by himself, killed the Gingrich revolution, when he caved on the "train wreck". He was a DC product, and it was killing him that the Government was shut down. He cut Newt's balls off, and forced the GOP to cave with that move. Then what happens? He gets rewarded with the nomination! He campaigned like he had made a deal to lose. Maybe he had.
Then we get Bush II, the "compassionate Conservatism" guy. What a joke! As if conservatism doesn't care about people. What he meant by compassion is our tax money going to stupid causes that perpetuate problems, from social welfare programs to foreign aid, to education. He campaigned for every RINO he could find, in each case undercutting the conservative alternative. He brings in guys like Martinez (who he made Senator in Fla. instead of the conservative) and pushes things like amnesty for illegals.
Where I differ with Michael Reagan is that after his father, the party's faithful were conservative and deserved conservative leadership. We have some moderates in the party, sure, and if a good one once in a while rose to the top on the strength of leadership qualities, we could take that. What I cannot countenance is that the "moderate" (read: liberal) wing controls everything in the party, and their motto is "the alternative is worse". We thought it was a conservative party with room for some people who are moderate on some things. Instead, it appears it is a liberal party, accepting the socialist premise of the Democrats, that barely tolerates US.
Well, I say, like Reagan did, that my party has left me. We showed it the way and it showed us the door. To stick around any longer would be to, in the manner of Huckabee, wear out our welcome.
Check out www.FalconParty.com
We need a sugar daddy. A Perot with sanity. Are you one?
Oh this topic is an old BS, posted I don't know how many times.
If GHW Bush and Reagan hated each other, why did GHW Bush give a eulogy at Reagan's funeral.
Your schtick gets old, laughable, and off the deep end, such as Lars Larson saying that he knows Ronald Reagan better than his own son, Michael Reagan.
“I’ll take a 60% conservative”
That certainly isn’t McCain.
Reagan Jr is still on the radio? What, in 20 markets?
I don't know who Lars Larson, and I don't care. I do know Michael and respect him. He may be right about what Ronald Reagan would do about John McCain. Ronald Reagan made the decision to work within the Republican Party for his ideas. It was a different era, with different rules on campaign finance and delegate selection. He might despair of being able to work within the Republican party. He DID leave the Democrat party, we know that, and the truth was, when he left, in the 50s, it was LESS dominated by communists than when he was a staunch Dem in the 30s and 40s.
What I am saying is that, based on my analysis of the ability of conservatism to triumph by slavish devotion to the Republican party, I think it is time to come up with a conservative strategy that is not a Republican strategy. That may mean working within the party, or it may mean forming an outside organization, or even a new party, but something has to be done, because after Bush, Bush, Dole, Bush, Bush, McCain, it is clear that conservatives are being shut out.
Take your schtick and shove it ......well, you know where.
McCain: 82% lifetime American Conservative Union rating
Obama: 8% lifetime American Conservative Union rating
Hillary!: 9% lifetime American Conservative Union rating
"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.
I think I'll agree with Reagan - I'll take the 80% with McCain rather than hold out for the 100% that is NO WHERE TO BE SEEN, and end up with an 8% Obama. THAT is the Reagan position.
Did Michael Reagan tell Lars Larson who Larson’s father would be supporting in this election?
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.