Posted on 09/17/2015 7:25:13 AM PDT by IChing
Most Republicans running for president have only one idea: Be like Reagan!
Unfortunately, they seem to remember nothing about Reagan apart from the media-created caricature of a slightly addled old man who somehow mesmerized an imbecilic public with his sunny optimism.
Jeb! goes around saying, "I believe we're on the verge of the greatest time to be alive."
Marco Rubio answered a question in the first debate about God and veterans, saying: "Well, first, let me say I think God has blessed us. He has blessed the Republican Party with some very good candidates. ... And I believe God has blessed our country. This country has been extraordinarily blessed. And we have honored that blessing. And that's why God has continued to bless us."
John Kasich responded to a question at the New Hampshire presidential forum about why he was running, saying: "Well, Jack, look, we're all -- we -- I've received blessings. Most of us here have been very, very blessed, and when you get that way, you have to figure out what your purpose is in life to make the world a little better place."
They all sound like Barney, the purple dinosaur, singing, "I love you, you love me!"
The other problem with the Be Reagan strategy is: It's not 1980 anymore. Reagan's election is as far away today as the defeat of Hitler was then.
Gov. Scott Walker's answer to whether he'd invade Iraq, knowing "what you know today," was: "I'd point out that in the overall issue of foreign policy, I'd say in my lifetime, the most impressive president when it came to foreign policy was a governor from California."
What does that even mean? Is he going to invade Grenada, fund the Contras and put missiles in Western Europe? Back in 1996, when Bob Dole said, "I'm willing to be another Ronald Reagan, if that's what you want," at least people laughed.
When Moammar Gadhafi was under siege in 2011, Rick Santorum said: "Ronald Reagan bombed Libya. If you want to be Reaganesque, the path is clear."
On the other hand, in the quarter century since Reagan bombed Libya, Bush invaded Iraq, prompting Gadhafi to end his WMD program, invite in U.N. weapons inspectors, and pay the families of the Lockerbie bombing victims $8 million apiece.
Nonetheless, "bomb Libya" is exactly what our feckless commander in chief did. Obama sent American troops to participate in the NATO bombing of Libya -- which helped oust Gadhafi, which led to Islamic lunatics running the country, which led to the murder of four Americans, including our ambassador, in 2012, and the refugees flooding Europe today.
Formulaic applications of Reagan's policies from the 1980s don't always work the same way they did in the 1980s. (Similarly, Duran Duran's new single was kind of a dud.) I used "What Would Reagan Do?" as a joke back in 2005; these guys think it's an actual governing philosophy.
When Reagan was running (three and a half decades ago), there was a real fight in the Republican Party over abortion, the Equal Rights Amendment, guns and foreign policy. Reagan had to face down elements in his own party to be pro-life, anti-ERA, pro-gun and to pursue an aggressive anti-Soviet foreign policy.
Reagan won. It's over. The ERA is gone. The Soviet Union is gone. The GOP is unquestionably the party of life and the Second Amendment. (If only fetuses could get their hands on a gun!)
Ever since the hero of 9/11, Rudy Giuliani, couldn't get out of the starting gate in his presidential bid because he was pro-abortion and anti-gun, no serious Republican candidate is ever going to waver on those two issues again.
So why did Marco Rubio find it necessary to stress that he opposed abortion even in cases of rape and incest at the first GOP presidential debate? Did he not live through that whole Todd Akin thing, like the rest of us?
Today, the fight in the Republican Party isn't over abortion, guns or the Sandinistas; the dividing line is immigration. Will we continue to be the United States, or will we become another failed Latin American state?
On this, it's Donald Trump (and the people) vs. everyone else.
Trump announced his presidential campaign by talking about Mexican rapists. Immigration is the only policy paper he's put out so far -- and he's been crushing the polls. He got his one sustained standing ovation from 20,000 cheering fans in Dallas Monday night when he talked about stopping illegal immigration.
But James B. Stewart gasses on in The New York Times about Trump's "namecalling, personal attacks and one-liners that have vaulted him to the top of the polls." In the entire article, Stewart never mentions immigration.
Perhaps some minority of people will vote for Trump because of his personality. But I notice that it's his position on immigration that gets thousands of people leaping to their feet.
The media will talk about anything but Trump's specific, detailed policies on immigration -- all while claiming he doesn't have any "policy details." The very fact that the entire media -- including most of the conservative commentariat -- obdurately refuse to acknowledge the popularity of Trump's immigration plans is exactly why Trump is exploding in the polls.
Trump isn't trying to imitate anyone. He's leading on the seminal issue of our time while the rest of the field practices looking optimistic in front of the mirror.
And the downside is?
No downside. I do think now that Trump will exit once Bush is knocked out. The upside is Cruz is where he needs to be.
I think there is a strong undercurrent of anti-establishment sentiment in the United States; it’s shown by the very high negatives in polling about just about every public institution. Everyone has a sense that “things are not right.” We all know there are a number of things wrong. The political conundrum is that identifying the problems and proposing a solution on most of those issues tends to divide Americans.
But immigration is fundamentally different. It’s the lightning rod, the one visceral push-button issue that unifies Americans, and they all say “That’s it!” At least to themselves, just not in public. On this issue, the vast majority of Americans sense their government has betrayed them and sold them out.
Trump did some very good focus poling to discover this, and he’s tapped into it.
Rumor had it that Ross Perot had some business grudge against “Read My Lips” Bush. That says something about the real face of a family if they can repeatedly draw enemies at that level with so much determination. That is not mere rivalry, that is hatred. One has to wonder why.
He's been specific on immigration and taxes so far. Who the hell else is laying out their specific plans now?
Its like a magnified view of the tumblers of the safe as the knob is slowly turned.
Conservatives pride themselves on high standards.
But they give Trump a pass because they read into him whatever they want.
Intellectually, he’s unimpressive.
The same things people ridiculed about Ross Perot, they swoon with over Trump.
Agree...
Perhaps you should read the article.
But when it comes to her point that Trump is popular because of his stance on immigration, and that is now the single unifying touchstone political issue, how is Coulter wrong?
Its pure emotion that’s driving his support. Its difficult for his supporters to look at him objectively.
Ted Cruz is the person best suited for the Presidency but conservatives would rather have a shallow suit nominated for the nation’s highest office.
The desperation to win at all costs is leading conservatives to abandon life-long held convictions to back a candidate who tells them what they long to hear.
She’s wrong because there’s nothing conservative about Trump.
Others have made the point cogently.
And her track record in backing loser RINOs is not a reassuring one.
Naw, it’s that many are waking up to the fact that they’ve been #cuckservatives all along, and that it’s time to reject #cuckservatism in favor of nationalism.
Trump is no shallow suit, as you say. Wonkish he isn’t either — that’s the point.
Throw in prosecuting race hate criminals like the NBP and the NOI, and take all the money we give to Muslim toilet countries and give it to the families of fallen cops and US servicemen.
I think your intellectual measurement radar is off.
Trump is very sharp.
That was not how I read the article; I believe she made the point that immigration is a winning issue, it has been all along. Trump is the only candidate capitalizing on it and is ignoring all the other issues that would otherwise divide Americans politically. His position on immigration is certainly in line with what most conservatives believe. It also happens to be the belief of a vast majority of Americans, and is an issue about which most Americans feel passionate. If he can keep to the game plan of sticking as close to the immigration issue as possible and avoiding the others, he wins the election.
Whether or not he is conservative, whether or not Ann Coulter carries his water, or whether or not she is bad person, isn’t the real point of the article. Not to me, anyway.
I don’t know how you could watch last night’s debate (or, really, any of Trump’s speeches or interviews) and come away with the impression that he is “very sharp.” He looks and sounds so far out of his depth any time substantive questions come his way, that it’s not even funny anymore. Any time he’s asked some variation of “How do you plan to do [X]?” his response is some variation of “Trust me, I’ll handle it.” It’s baffling.
Politics without principles is demagoguery.
History is full of men who have taken a hold of people’s passions only to reveal its not their interests they serve.
Most Americans look in askance at Trump for good reason.
Yes!
Trump is an AMERICAN.
He is NOT a Kenyan Muslim punk commie gay bastard, either.
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.