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.
The amount of legal immigration this country is subjected to is no bargain either.
Cruz didn’t have any counterarguments because he didn’t figure out to name other candidates in his responses.
If he had, he would have got much more time and been able to show himself to be much more interactive—rather than just an ideas salesman on the political QVC channel.
“People are backing him based on emotional affinity.”
I back Trump based on what he pledges. I have no need for an emotional affinity with a person I will never meet. I have an emotional affinity for this country. I am not unique.
What are you talking about? People are realizing that evidence of substance is in actual accomplishments in the brick-and-mortar, Main Street private sector empire Trump has built, not in the polite gum-flapping the others do.
I like Cruz a lot. I hope he gets elected. My only nit with Cruz is that he is a little over the top dramatic now and then. Not in what he says, but in how he says it. A little to much drama. But not that it would keep me from voting for him.
Yup. He’s a very good self-promoter.
People paint their hopes and dreams on him but there’s no real substance to his candidacy.
People like him because he’s awesome at identifying with them.
That’s very different from saying why they support him.
I doubt one Trump supporter on this forum can state exactly what Trump has to say about any issue besides immigration.
If you go to his website, he has exactly one signature issue.
The rest is just the stuff as you noted, late night infomercials are made of.
I’m afraid most Freepers don’t care or want to see that Trump isn’t who they want him to be.
Thanks. 9YearLurker. I’ve been here 18 years myself, half under a different handle.
Trump has shown a better grasp of the big picture than anyone—and that is why he is leading.
You don’t want a details man (like Carter, for example) in the presidency.
...not to mention the fact that he pulls no punches on the real issue of the illegal invasion; Rand Paul even acknowledged that Trump was precisely right last night on the anchor baby/14th amendment argument, and that Fiorina was dead wrong. Substance, my FRiend.
Exactly, henkster.
Ann, your anti-Semitic tweet last night was the last straw.
You’re through.
How did all of those magnificent hotels and other structures in his real estate empire get built? Is Trump a construction engineer, laborer, foreman, architect, heavy equipment operator, lawyer, banker, electrician, security guard, bellboy, and so on ?
Well, how does he do it?
In my case, at least, it is not desperation to win at all costs.
Trump or Cruz are the only ones I will vote for.
I will never vote for the GOPe again.
I will vote for Trump because of the things I found out about him by reading his books or I will vote for Cruz because we all know he is the standard for conservatism.
More like 16, coffee ran out, glasses need cleaning.
“But they give Trump a pass because they read into him whatever they want.”
I have heard that line before; some people think it is so damn perceptive and penetrating.
Tell me, when Trump says he will build a wall on the Mexican border, what kind of meaning am I assigning to those words that really have nothing to do with building a wall?
When Trump says he will deport all illegals and make this nation a nation of laws again, exactly what meaning can I assign to those words that have nothing to do with deportation?
When Trump says he will repair our trade treaties, exactly what hidden meaning am I attaching to those words that have nothing to do with repairing our trade treaties?
When Trump says he can very Constitutionally end birthright citizenship, what exactly can I so easily construe his meaning to be other than ending birthright citizenship?
I can go on, but you get the drift.
As evidenced by what?
His bank account?
He can’t finish a sentence.
Those he starts are grand generalizations, free from content resembling specifics.
“Most,” huh?
I’m not talking about details.
I’m talking about principles.
What principles does Trump have - what is his world view?
I’d want to know how a President sees the world and leads the country.
We don’t need a policy wonk but we do need a thoughtful man who can tell us what direction our country should move in.
Trump has yet to paint that picture for the American people.
Nonsense, many of them made great points. But voters instinctively sense that Trump is really the only one who puts action and results ahead of politeness and policy wonkishness.
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.