Posted on 12/14/2009 8:46:28 AM PST by kristinn
Ronald Wilson Reagan, 40th President of the United States and out of office for twenty years, still has the landslide support of the American people that helped him win two historic terms in the 1980s.
An overlooked poll released last week by Public Policy Polling of over 1200 registered voters showed the Republican icon Reagan was the most popular of the five most recent presidents with 41 percent, impeached Democrat Bill Clinton was a distant second at 27 percent.
The current occupant of the Oval Office, Barack Obama, came in third with 22 percent, thanks to a splintering of support from African-Americans. Only 64 percent named the first African-American president their favorite. Interestingly, 19 percent of African-Americans named Republican presidents their favorite (Reagan-9%, Bush 41-5%, Bush 43-5%) with Clinton being selected by 18%.
Even more distressing for Obama, he was named the second worst president by 37% of those surveyed, barely edging out George W. Bush who was named by 38%.
Nine percent of African-American voters named Obama as the worst, as did 14% of Democrats.
Reagan passed away in 2004. He is the only former president in the survey not still alive to burnish their legacy.
During the last presidential campaign, there was an argument among Republicans about whether the 'era of Reagan' was over.
The standard of Reagan was fiercely upheld by Rush Limbaugh against the likes of Newt Gingrinch:
...Newt could have just as easily said here that conservative principles don't change, that the Reagan coalition is simply looking for leadership and that we need to bring more creative policy alternatives to the table than we have in the recent past. But that's not what he said. He said, "The era of Reagan is over. ... It's the end of the Reagan era." It is not. If the Reagan era is over, if the Reagan coalition is dead, what replaced it? Could somebody tell me? Precisely nothing has replaced it, and that's why so many people are scratching their heads, why so many people are a little nervous, because there isn't any real leadership out there that causes people and inspires people to get behind it and go rah-rah and make certain things happen.
mean, is there a Gingrich coalition that has replaced the Reagan coalition? For that matter, what is the McCain coalition? If we're going to have a new era, what is the McCain era? What is the Huckabee era? What is their winning coalition? They don't have one. You know, all this sounds like Third Way kind of talk, the triangulation of the Clinton years in the nineties. But I don't know what the McCain era would be, and I don't know what the Huckabee coalition is. They don't have a coalition. They're out trying to get votes of independents and Democrats. They're pandering to moderates and independents. Folks, I just want you to think about this: What happens if either of these two guys happen to win, attracting the votes of independents, moderates, the Jell-Os, and Democrats? Does that not equal the demise of the Republican Party?
... Defending liberty takes leadership and guts. Promoting Big Government doesn't. Promoting Big Government is liberalism, and that's easy. It's one of the easiest things that you can do, to run out and simply say, "Well, government's going to fix this. I'm going to have to a plan here. My plan's going to do this, and it involves the government." If conservatism is dead, and if the Reagan era is dead, then I assume that this means the Declaration of Independence is dead as well, that the era of the Declaration has come and gone. Now, what we actually have going on now are people posing as serious thinkers (a common thread in all of this, folks) that conservatism is dead. By the way, that's what the Reagan coalition is, after all. The major elements of conservatism combined into a political movement, is what Reaganism was and of course they're now saying, "That era is gone. We need to replace it with something else." (sigh)
Well, conservatism isn't dead because it cannot be dead. Conservatism is not manmade. Conservatism is a philosophy. It's not a scheme. It's not a plan to figure out what the American people need and want, and then give it to them. That's populism! Conservatism is a philosophy based on God-given natural rights. The Declaration of Independence, is that dead? Of course not! What's dead is leadership on the Republican side, and because there is a lack of leadership of someone who the substantive understanding of liberty and the political skills to advance it, we get all this cockamamie nonsense about the death of our principles. Our principles are not dead! Our principles cannot die.
The PPP survey was released December 11th. No mention of Reagan's overwhelming popularity in the era of Obama was reported in the media.
I’ll never forget casting my first ever vote for this man once I turned 18 and graduated high school in 1980. My most satisfying vote ever.
Carter was an absolute disaster for the country. Things were incredibly bad in the late 70’s.
Reagan saved this country from itself.
Maybe they were old people who have had Alzheimer’s set it within the year.
The President with the most “common” education was Lyndon Johnson and he completely screwed up the country. Where one receives their education has no bearing on who they turn out to be.
Having said that, Bob Riley should be President.
Especially after 9/11.
Bush was great on 9/11, but too soft on other things. I was never convinced he was any Reagan.
5 presidents was the cut-off.
“Obama 47
McCain 45
Don’t remember 8”
Surely a couple of percent didn’t vote, even emong likely voters
Bush could not hold a candle to Reagan in presenting ideas to us average Joes. “Tear Down this wall” was Reagan’s. Reagan was inspiring.
With Bush we got “Bring it on” to the troublemakers in Iraq. Sounded great, till they did. Bush was depressing.
Over half the population wasn’t alive or cognizant during the Carter administration.
"... I did not take the oath I have just taken with the intention of presiding over the dissolution of the world's strongest economy."
~~~ President Ronald Reagan
“The same polling company released a survey a few days before this one that showed forty-four percent would rather have George W. Bush back in office now rather than Obama. “
I love the “MISS ME YET?” Poster! LOL!
Um, have you looked at who was advising Johnson? A bunch of Ivy League grads, starting with Robert Strange McNamara, Harvard MBA, Harvard undergrad.
The wreckage of the financial implosion has shown that indeed, where someone went to school has had a bearing on who they turned out to be - at least in finance. Harvard MBA grads take on more risk than people without the Harvard Biz School experience. And now we’re paying for their risk.
As for the POTUS with the most “common” education, I’d put that as Harry S. Truman, not Johnson. Truman is the only POTUS since 1897 to not have a college education.
For a hint of what was to come by electing the Ivy Leaguers to power, I’d put forth Wilson as the prototype, and history shows Wilson to be one of our very worst presidents.
My point still stands about Reagan: He was the last POTUS in the last 20 years to have not come out of Harvard or Yale (or both). Bush Sr, Clinton, Bush Jr and now Obama - all pulling the nation on a downhill trajectory, all Ivy League grads, staffing their administrations with Ivy League graduates. Obama has stepped up the take-over of our government by Harvard a notch above the prior three, I would add. Bush had two SecTreas’s who were not from Harvard - and he fired both of them to get a SecTreas with a Harvard MBA pedigree. Turns out that guys like Snow were right. Not politically convenient, but they were right.
If true, then the GOP ought to be able to get ~20% of the black vote if we do it right.
Interesting, since Obama still has 96% approval among blacks.
You're right! But "doing it right" requires that we not pander to the black vote and sponsor "black issues".
Instead, what it will require is being openly and honestly conservative. Promoting conservative principles to black audiences will do more to attract black votes than promising what Democrats promise. And, in the long run, will better benefit the black community -- along with the white community and the Latino community and the Asian community, etc....
Absolutely. However, acknowledging things that blacks percieve as issues (racism, health care, jobs, education) will go a long way. This does NOT mean we start paying for handouts, instead, present conservative solutions to these things.
From what black acquaintences have told me, they feel the GOP just ignores what they percieve as important issues.
Addressing them doesn’t require becoming Democrat-lite though. Instead, show them how conservatism can help them.
Who cares about what benefits these communities? We should be "smart" and pander to the PC elite. /s
I miss him...LOTS!! sniff:(
Addressing them doesn’t require becoming Democrat-lite though. Instead, show them how conservatism can help them.
The GOP's institutional approach to blacks is pathetic. It begins and ends with half-hearted pandering...and no serious attempt to address legitimate problems for blacks. Much less promote conservative solutions to these problems.
Fact is, conservative solutions aren't race-dependent...
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.