Posted on 10/25/2015 7:03:25 AM PDT by cotton1706
In 2016, there are 14 Republican presidential candidates for whom Ronald Reagan is both the benchmark for conservative values and the lodestar of conservative ideas. Theres also one who wrote, in the second to last year of Reagans presidency, that he had been so smooth, so effective a performer that only now, seven years later, are people beginning to question whether theres anything beneath that smile.
The gadfly was Donald Trump, writing in his book The Art of the Deal. But it wasnt just a glancing blow; to promote the book, Trump launched a political campaign that tore into Reagans record, including his willingness to stand up to the Soviet Union. Advised by the notorious Roger Stone, a Nixon-era GOP trickster, in 1987 Trump purchased full-page ads in Trump took out full-page ads in The New York Times, Boston Globe and Washington Post blasting Reagan and his team.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
So did the bush family. I am not going to be tricked by these insincere aholes
Politico. Screw them.
Speaking of the Bushes, let’s not forget that the last time a Bush was VP, the President ended up being shot less than 90 days into his first term.
GHWB = former CIA director.
Bush & Hinckley families = very best of friends.
John Hinckley = never did impress Jody Foster.
Mitt Romney had opinions on every side of every issue. The GOPe told me to look past that and just embrace what the guy was saying out on the campaign trail.
I never liked Mitt, but I did reluctantly vote for him.
I genuinely like Trump, and I am eager to vote for him. His opinions from 1987? I’m planning to look past that.
Stick it where the sun don't shine politico, we could all care less about what you communist think!
Yes, but people here on FR will continue to publish their hit pieces on the candidates they do not like.
When Ronald Reagan hated Socialism (1961):
Back in 1927 an American socialist, Norman Thomas, six times candidate for president on the Socialist Party ticket, said the American people would never vote for socialism. But he said under the name of liberalism the American people will adopt every fragment of the socialist program.
There are many ways in which our government has invaded the precincts of private citizens, method of earning a living; our government is in business to the extent of owning more than 19,000 businesses covering 47 different lines of activity. This amounts to a fifth of the total industrial capacity of the United States.
But at the moment I would like to talk about another way because this threat is with us, and at the moment, is more imminent.
One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine.
Its very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project, most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly cant afford it.
Now, the American people, if you put it to them about socialized medicine and gave them a chance to choose, would unhesitatingly vote against it. We had an example of this. Under the Truman administration it was proposed that we have a compulsory health insurance program for all people in the United States, and, of course, the American people unhesitatingly rejected this.
So with the American people on record as not wanting socialized medicine, Congressman Ferrand introduced the Ferrand bill. This was the idea that all people of Social Security age, should be brought under a program of compulsory health insurance. Now this would not only be our senior citizens, this would be the dependents and those that are disabled, this would be young people if they are dependents of someone eligible for social security.
Now , Congressman Ferrand, brought the program out on that idea out , on just for that particular group of people. But Congressman Ferrand was subscribing to this foot-in-the door philosophy, because he said, If we can only break through and get our foot inside the door, then we can expand the program after that.
Walter Ruther said, Its no secret that the United Automobile Workers is officially on record of backing a program of national health insurance. And by national health insurance, he meant socialized medicine for every American.
Well, let us see what the socialists themselves have to say about it. They say once the Ferrand bill is passed this nation will be provided with a mechanism for socialized medicine capable of indefinite expansion in every direction until it includes the entire population. Now we cant say we havent been warned.
Now Congressman Ferrand is no longer a Congressman of the United States government. He has been replaced, not in his particular assignment, but in his backing of such a bill by Congressman King of California. It is presented in the idea of a great emergency that millions of our senior citizens are unable to provide needed medical care. But this ignores that fact that in the last decade, 127 million of our citizens, in just 10 years, have come under the protection of some form of privately owned medical or hospital insurance.
Now the advocates of this bill when you try to oppose it challenge you on an emotional basis. They say, “What would you do? Throw these poor people out to die with no medical attention?
Thats ridiculous and of course no one is advocating it. As a matter of fact, in the last session of Congress a bill was adopted known as the Kerr/Mills bill. Now without even allowing this bill to be tried to see if it works, they have introduced this King bill, which is really the Ferrand bill.
What is the Kerr/Mills bill? It is a frank recognition of the medical need or problem of the senior citizens I have mentioned and it has provided from the federal government, money to the states and the local communities that can be used at the discretion of the state to help those people who need it.
Now what reason could the other people have for backing a bill which says we insist on compulsory health insurance for senior citizens on a basis of age alone regardless of whether they are worth millions of dollars, whether they have an income, whether they are protected by their own insurance, whether they have savings.
I think we can be excused for believing that as ex-congressman Ferrand said, this was simply an excuse to bring about what they wanted all the time — socialized medicine.
James Madison in 1788 speaking to the Virginia convention said, Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.
They want to attach this bill to Social Security and they say here is a great insurance program; now instituted, now working.
Lets take a look at Social Security itself. Again, very few of us disagree with the original premise that there should be some form of savings that would keep destitution from following unemployment by reason of death, disability or old age. And to this end, Social Security was adopted, but it was never intended to supplant private savings, private insurance, pension programs of unions and industries.
Now in our country under our free-enterprise system we have seen medicine reach the greatest heights that it has in any country in the world. Today, the relationship between patient and doctor in this country is something to be envied any place. The privacy, the care that is given to a person, the right to chose a doctor, the right to go from one doctor to the other.
But lets also look from the other side. The freedom the doctor uses. A doctor would be reluctant to say this. Well, like you, I am only a patient, so I can say it in his behalf. The doctor begins to lose freedoms, its like telling a lie. One leads to another. First you decide the doctor can have so many patients. They are equally divided among the various doctors by the government, but then the doctors are equally divided geographically, so a doctor decides he wants to practice in one town and the government has to say to him he cant live in that town, they already have enough doctors. You have to go some place else. And from here it is only a short step to dictating where he will go.
This is a freedom that I wonder if any of us has a right to take from any human being. I know how Id feel if you my fellow citizens, decided that to be an actor I had to be a government employee and work in a national theater. Take it into your own occupation or that of your husband. All of us can see what happens once you establish the precedent that the government can determine a mans working place and his working methods, determine his employment. From here it’s a short step to all the rest of socialism, to determining his pay and pretty soon your son wont decide when hes in school where he will go or what he will do for a living. He will wait for the government to tell him where he will go to work and what he will do.
In this country of ours, took place the greatest revolution that has ever taken place in the worlds history; the only true revolution. Every other revolution simply exchanged one set of rulers for another. But here, for the first time in all the thousands of years of mans relations to man, a little group of men, the founding fathers, for the first time, established the idea that you and I had within ourselves the God given right and ability to determine our own destiny. This freedom was built into our government with safeguards. We talk democracy today, and strangely, we let democracy begin to assume the aspect of majority rule is all that is needed. The majority rule is a fine aspect of democracy provided there are guarantees written in to our government concerning the rights of the individual and of the minorities.
What can we do about this? Well, you and I can do a great deal. We can write to our congressmen and to our senators. We can say right now that we want no further encroachment on these individual liberties and freedoms. And at the moment, the key issue is, we do not want socialized medicine.
In Washington today, 40 thousand letters, less than 100 per congressman are evidence of a trend in public thinking.
Representative Hallock of Indiana has said, When the American people wants something from Congress, regardless of its political complexion, if they make their wants known, Congress does what the people want.”
So write, and if this man writes back to you and tells you that he too is for free enterprise, that we have these great services and so forth, that must be performed by government, dont let him get away with it.
Show that you have not been convinced. Write a letter right back and tell him that you believe government economy and fiscal responsibility, that you know governments dont tax to get the money they need; governments will always find a need for the money they get and that you demand the continuation of our free enterprise system.
You and I can do this. The only way we can do it is by writing to our congressmen even we believe that he’s on our side to begin with. Write to strengthen his hand. Give him the ability to stand before his colleagues in Congress and say that he has heard from my constituents and this is what they want. Write those letters now call your friends and them to write.
If you dont, this program I promise you, will pass just as surely as the sun will come up tomorrow and behind it will come other federal programs that will invade every area of freedom as we have known it in this country until one day as Normal Thomas said we will wake to find that we have socialism, and if you dont do this and I dont do this, one of these days we are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our childrens children, what it once was like in America when men were free.
87? I agree with you. But what about his liberal opinions in 2015? And yes, there’s been quite a few.
Vigorous debate is good. It helps to bring forth truth. Posting hit pieces is part of a vigrous debate.
What’s amazing is not that the Left is trying to divide conservatives, it’s that so many conservatives follow them like lambs to the slaughter.
YAWN...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Trump isn’t perfect. But he’s so much better than everyone else in the race.
Supporting Kelo is FAR from perfect. Blaming Bush for 9-11 is far from perfect. Praising Scottish and Canadian health care is far from perfect. Saying single payor would have worked in America just 15 years ago is far from perfect. Exonerating all, every single Democrat, from the Fannie / Freddie / EPA / Cronyism economic crash is far far far from perfect.
I’ll vote for him over and Democrat, and over Jeb or Rubio or any number of another Republicans if it comes down to it...but please don’t insult the intelligence of those who can and do see thru the man.
Since when did Pollutico care about Reagan anyway?
After reading the article, I can’t find any actual quotes from Trump where he “hates” Reagan. At most, trump was contending the countries we defend should pony up some of the cost of that defense.
But truth is not Politico’s purpose, is it?
They are looking for anything.
Trump has a vision to make America Great Again. The rest have nothing. I damn sure do not want any SDA CO as CINC.
Trump did say that he felt that Reagan should have had a strong backbone when he went to Russia...and that is when he said something like ‘tear down this wall’; but Trump liked Reagan...
The media and talking heads are trying to say that Trump is going to copy Reagan, but anyone that knows Trump, as we are getting to know Trump knows that’s b.s. from outer space...
They both are great men in their own rights...Reagan could cut you down and you wouldn’t know it until a few hours passed, with Trump he just does it!!!
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.