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.
Can you give me examples of any politician in this race answering substantive questions in depth? I see no example of that . They all answer in generalities. What most people see in Trunp is a real man. He is not a pansy politician. I can see Putin actually respecting Trump. We need a man, not a girly man, in office.
Substance on the issues, FRiend. He’s got none.
But keep telling yourself that the buffoon will make a good President. It doesn’t make it true, but keep telling yourself.
Your comment completely ignores the central premise of the column.
“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?”, from Ann Coulter
You truly do not get it at all. You must live somewhere completely unlike where my family lives. I don't really care much for The Donald's personality or have an “emotional affinity for him. But he seems to be the one who truly has made turning back the invasion that we are currently experiencing a top priority. Obama has kept his promise to “fundamentally change America”. When my wife and I go to our local Mall, Walmart, Old Country Buffet or just about anywhere, we now find that we are in the extreme minority much of the time. I am not sure that the majority even know how to speak English. And we don't live in some inner city hell hole like Detroit. We live in the suburbs in the Northwest.
The America we grew up in is fading fast for us, for our children and our grandchildren. Both my wife and I have grandparents who came from foreign country's and other relatives who learned English as a second language. But unlike the current batch of immigrants legal or illegal... they didn't have a bunch of social programs to take advantage of, so they learned to speak English and they assimilated into the population, worked hard and adopted the American way.
Who other than Trump really appears to take this issue seriously and will make a true effort to reverse this trend? Who other than Trump appears to have enough chutzpa to actually get himself elected? You say he doesn't have a "coherent conservative view". But this is literally a fight for our country's survival. I would love to have someone like Cruz who does but unfortunately he will probably never have the mass appeal Trump does and I am not convinced that he will put immigration at the top of his list of important priorities.
Yeah, I hear you on Cruz. He’s also IMO more political than he sometimes lets on—e.g., backing the Corker bill and TPA.
But that problem with Cruz’s delivery IMO will keep him from either the nomination or ultimate victory, and in office would make him utterly incapable of speaking over the media to the people directly. (That is what is “Reaganesque” about Trump, though Trump is of course less eloquent among other things.)
So better that Trump continue to roll out sound policies (e.g., no trade protectionism) and get someone like Cruz to join him as his veep. That, I think, would be a great combination.
I’m not sold on her in the least, but look at Fiorina’s response to the same Putin question. She gave specific details of things she would do to put Putin in his place.
Yup. There are three of us on here faced with Diogenes Dilemma.
An honest man shouldn’t be hard to find.
From Trump, you hear banal one liners and plenty of insults.
Now that’s fine for a reality TV show host but its not at all what you and I picture in a President.
Exactly, odawg.
We’ve got too much of people here vaguely accusing Trump of being vague. His immigration plan is more detailed and substantial—and what’s needed—than what the others have put out there. The rest of it is coming in due time (economics plan in two weeks), and we can continue to judge from there.
We gave the keys to the GOP in a staggeringly massive landslide nationwide victory in the last midterms. We gave them the power to significantly thwart Obama and the democrats. They did not do it. Their principles and philosophy are the “right” ones.
Don’t you think it’s time to join with those of us who have realized that #cuckservatism is the real problem?
Trump is making the case, you seem like you just don’t want to hear it. You and others say, “I don’t hear any substance,” while substance piles up all around and in front of you.
Yes!
My pleasure! And thank you.
Yeah all that billions of dollars in actual real estate is imaginary, right?
Gee, ya know what would really help?
Trump should write a book or sumfin!
Good analysis.
Actually, the bulk of his (over-inflated) net worth is not actual real estate. But keep on thinking whatever you want to think about your Dear Leader, guy.
It wasn’t an anti-semitic Tweet, it was targeted at GOP candidates acting as if Zionist jews are the main constituency in America.
. The rest of it is coming in due time (economics plan in two weeks), and we can continue to judge from there.
Trump knows that they will only rip apart and nit pick anything that he offers so he is strategically planning how and when to do that.
The Art of The Deal. He knows where he wants to go and will show us how he will get there when he wants too, not because some individual or the MSM wants a new attack line
“Politics without principles is demagoguery.”
You think Trump is the only one who fits that?
I don’t think so.
Golly, you’re right, Trump has nothing to say at all on international trade, tax policy, labor policy....sheesh, he has no actual experience working in the economy, building anything, negotiating deals....glad you weighed in....
For me the Trump draw is about how he is able to take down the establishment (uniparty, LSM) like nobody else can. To me that is the most important thing any of them has to offer. I like Cruz a lot but if we are going to achieve what he wants to achieve, we have to get passed the establishment first. And they are deeply entrenched as you know.
The guy who paved the way for Clinton was the liar who boasted: “Read my lips - no new taxes”, and then reneged on that pledge.
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.