No he wasn’t.
I agree with you about that.
You missed the point of my post.
My point is that in addition to understanding the failings of the opposition party we need also understand the failings, and the potential failings, of our own party, especially when the error that is manifest, the error that Reagan was speaking of, is now attributable to both parties in a way that would never have been possible in Reagan’s time.
If the country was going to hell in a handbasket, and the policies driving that were being espoused by both Democrats and Republicans, Reagan would have applied the same scrutiny to Republicans as Democrats.
I’m advocating for each of us to be super-educated about candidates in both parties, to stop accepting Palin because she is Palin, and start expecting a very high level of conservative principals out of anyone who serves, be it the next Reagan, Sarah Palin, John McCain, whoever.
The lack of viable conservative candidates who are willing and able to serve should not be the determining factor of what we are willing to accept. The people applying for the job as our servants in politics should bring their standards up to our conservative standards. We should not be called upon to bring our standards down to them.
Do you think that union bosses accept anything but the most liberal candidates as acceptable? That’s what we are up against.
We can all agree on that. So did Ronald Reagan. He built his career with that philosophy...."Bold colors, no pale pastels." Didn't stop him from campaigning for people he didn't agree with all the time, like Chuck Percy who agreed with Carter more than he agreed with Reagan.
Ronald Reagan was real good at enemy identification...he despised the liberal Democrats.