Hannity was on re-play as I drove home this morning... and he was RAVING about a campaign letter sent out by the McCain camp comparing his "maverick" status within the GOP to Reagan's similar status back in 1975-76.
Now, I'm the first to agree that McCain is no Reagan. No one needs to tell me that... and I never voted for the man (Reagan, that is). However, that isn't the point I wanted to make.
All these weeping "Reagan-ites" need to understand something. Ronald W. Reagan is dead. He is not going to run for President ever again. Period. End of story.
Furthermore, I'm not sure even HE would satisfy all these "principled conservatives" that are screaming about "getting back to the roots" of conservatism. In two previous posts I have mentioned what I deem to be failures on the part of President Reagan's administration, and those failures are glaring examples of how even REAGAN couldn't stand up to the image he tried to convey in his run for office.
After watching 52 US citizens rot in Iran for 444 days, Reagan spent the next 8 years pandering to the Iranians, covertly and overtly. After watching 241 US Marines and Naval personnel die in Beirut, Reagan removed all US forces from Lebanon in direct opposition to the advice and councel of both his SoD and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. After promising to "beef up" the INS in 1981, he signed into law an amnesty bill that "legalized" more than 3 million illegal aliens. After promising to reduce the size and cost of government in BOTH his inaugural addresses, and in 6 SotU Addresses, he averaged an annual GROWTH rate of nearly 18% (size AND cost). After vowing to remove the Federal Government from the realm of State's rights, he forced the States to adhere to a drinking age of 21 AND failed to repeal (as promised) the 55 mph speed limit imposed by Nixon in 1973.
This is NOT a slam on Reagan. Reagan gave this country the ability to take pride in itself after nearly 16 years of anger and doubt. He managed to put behind all the shadows and doubt of Watergate, the "energy crisis", Vietnam, and the turbulent "60s", and told us it was okay to "dream heroic dreams" again. He FORCED America out of the "self-induced" fog of detente, and opened our eyes to the REALITY of modern communism and its failings. He rebuilt our Armed Forces after more than 20 years of failed defense administrations and a very unsuccessfull war. Most importantly, I do think that the man was a leader with integrity, pride, and honesty in a time when those attributes were in very short supply.
He was a great President... but he wasn't perfect.
Truman was a great President, as was FDR, and Kennedy, and Teddy Roosevelt, and Lincoln. All were great in their time, and all were just waht the nation needed at that time. But if FDR, or Lincoln, or Kennedy were to come back today and run again... would they be as good? Would their particular brand of politics and their unique viewpoints be AS effective now as they were then?
NO.
So, can we PLEASE stop with the "great wailing and gnashing of teeth" at the thought that we are ONCE AGAIN not going to be able to elect Ronald W. Reagan to the Presidency? Can't we focus on the issues at hand now, and how they might best be addressed by a LIVING candidate? Or are we doomed to live in the shadow of "Ronnie" forever? Will we be forced to start referring to the GOP as the "Reagan Party" rather than the Republican Party?
Lest we forget... Reagan might have done a bang-up job re-making the Republican party after the '76 election, but he wasn't universally loved either. In fact, his approval ratings as President never even beat Clinton's, and were totally blown away by BOTH GHW Bush and GW Bush. They averaged right around 47% for the whole 8 years.
If all these "Reagan Conservatives" want to give Ron this much credit, I want them to NOT ignore the failings of his administrations, either. Just as Ryan was forced (by reason, not actual force) to admit that if Regan gets credit for the "Fall of Communism", then he shares it equally with Maggie Thatcher and John Paul II... I want to hear all the pundits and nostalgia-ridden GOP fans admit that the man WASN'T infallible.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
I'm confused...
I’m not being funny or sarcastic here… I really am trying to understand this.
Okay, the Romney supporters are pissed at the Super Tuesday results. McCain has a serious lead, and lots of momentum. He has won key states that many Romney-ites seem to have thought they had in the bag… CA, NY, NJ, and CT among them.
I am the first to admit that McCain has a less than stellar Senate record… both on missed votes (57% during this Congress alone) and in crossing the isle (only an 87% party vote record for his Senate career). However, he clearly WON the states mentioned above… at least for registered Republicans, if not “Reagan conservatives” (whom I assume voted for “Ron” Romney).
My question is this: Do pundits like Levin and Hannity actually think that the Romney supporters WON’T vote GOP in the general, if McCain wins the nomination? What is the alternative? Take the kids to a movie? Paint the house? Of course, the conservatives in CA, NY, NJ, and CT will vote for whomever the GOP nominates, right?
The absolute hatred for John McCain by Mark Levin, Sean Hannity, Mike Church, et al astonishes me to no end! Levin actually called him a “socialist” on my way into work! Why is this?
The Cato Institute (you can’t get more conservative than THAT!) listed 30 key Senatorial votes since Feb of 2005, and showed how each Senator voted. Out of those 30 votes, McCain only voted AGAINST the party majority 4 times. Four out of thirty ISN’T enough to qualify him for “liberal” of the year, is it?
Let’s look at those four votes…
H.R.810; Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005. The GOP members voted 36 to 19 against it, with McCain voting in favor… along with Orrin Hatch, Trent Lott, Lamar Alexander, Arlen Specter, and Bob Bennett. These aren’t “liberal” names, by any means, right?
Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to the Consideration of S. J. Res. 1; Marriage Protection Amendment. Here, in an attempt to begin the Amendment process to define marriage as between a man and woman, the GOP voted 47 in favor, 7 against, with McCain against… along with Arlen Specter, Trent Lott, and John Sununu (sp?).
S. 2611 As Amended; Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006. This was a big vote, I’d guess… especially in light of the election issues. 32 GOP Senators voted against it, while 23 voted for it. Among the “ayes” were John McCain, Thad Cochran, Arlen Specter, Mitch McConnell and Norm Coleman.
Conference Report H. R. 6; Energy Policy Act of 2005. Another biggie, giving tax breaks to companies working for energy independence and lower pollution levels. 49 voted yes, 6 voted no… including McCain, Sununu and Kyl.
My point is simply that he wasn’t a “lone dissenter” in the GOP crowd… he had some pretty conservative company as he crossed the isle on these key votes. Yet I don’t hear Coulter or Hannity calling Lott, or Specter, or Sununu out onto the carpet for their votes… only McCain is labeled as a “liberal” and a “socialist” because he made some un-GOP votes.
McCain has been quoted here as having “heard the message” about immigration and secure borders… so he has changed his position. Is that any different than Romney changing his position on gay marriage, or abortion?
Maybe the majority of real conservatives in CA or NY did vote Romney, but that doesn’t mean they will hold back a vote if McCain gets the nomination… so what is the panic? Why is Levin saying that “his” voice won’t be heard for the next 12 years? (I only wish that were true!)
Okay, the Romney supporters are pissed at the Super Tuesday results. McCain has a serious lead, and lots of momentum. He has won key states that many Romney-ites seem to have thought they had in the bag… CA, NY, NJ, and CT among them.
I am the first to admit that McCain has a less than stellar Senate record… both on missed votes (57% during this Congress alone) and in crossing the isle (only an 87% party vote record for his Senate career). However, he clearly WON the states mentioned above… at least for registered Republicans, if not “Reagan conservatives” (whom I assume voted for “Ron” Romney).
My question is this: Do pundits like Levin and Hannity actually think that the Romney supporters WON’T vote GOP in the general, if McCain wins the nomination? What is the alternative? Take the kids to a movie? Paint the house? Of course, the conservatives in CA, NY, NJ, and CT will vote for whomever the GOP nominates, right?
The absolute hatred for John McCain by Mark Levin, Sean Hannity, Mike Church, et al astonishes me to no end! Levin actually called him a “socialist” on my way into work! Why is this?
The Cato Institute (you can’t get more conservative than THAT!) listed 30 key Senatorial votes since Feb of 2005, and showed how each Senator voted. Out of those 30 votes, McCain only voted AGAINST the party majority 4 times. Four out of thirty ISN’T enough to qualify him for “liberal” of the year, is it?
Let’s look at those four votes…
H.R.810; Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005. The GOP members voted 36 to 19 against it, with McCain voting in favor… along with Orrin Hatch, Trent Lott, Lamar Alexander, Arlen Specter, and Bob Bennett. These aren’t “liberal” names, by any means, right?
Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to the Consideration of S. J. Res. 1; Marriage Protection Amendment. Here, in an attempt to begin the Amendment process to define marriage as between a man and woman, the GOP voted 47 in favor, 7 against, with McCain against… along with Arlen Specter, Trent Lott, and John Sununu (sp?).
S. 2611 As Amended; Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006. This was a big vote, I’d guess… especially in light of the election issues. 32 GOP Senators voted against it, while 23 voted for it. Among the “ayes” were John McCain, Thad Cochran, Arlen Specter, Mitch McConnell and Norm Coleman.
Conference Report H. R. 6; Energy Policy Act of 2005. Another biggie, giving tax breaks to companies working for energy independence and lower pollution levels. 49 voted yes, 6 voted no… including McCain, Sununu and Kyl.
My point is simply that he wasn’t a “lone dissenter” in the GOP crowd… he had some pretty conservative company as he crossed the isle on these key votes. Yet I don’t hear Coulter or Hannity calling Lott, or Specter, or Sununu out onto the carpet for their votes… only McCain is labeled as a “liberal” and a “socialist” because he made some un-GOP votes.
McCain has been quoted here as having “heard the message” about immigration and secure borders… so he has changed his position. Is that any different than Romney changing his position on gay marriage, or abortion?
Maybe the majority of real conservatives in CA or NY did vote Romney, but that doesn’t mean they will hold back a vote if McCain gets the nomination… so what is the panic? Why is Levin saying that “his” voice won’t be heard for the next 12 years? (I only wish that were true!)
McCain must have counted on this, unfortunately he was right ...
First, a quick aside on Raegan. The "right" as defined today in Limbaugh type conservatives (I envoke his name whether you like it or not because Stephenopolous, Hume, Williams, they all use his name when referring to whom McCain has a "problem" with within his party, so if you don't like it, take it up with them. Not to mention, if out of the 300,000,000 US citizens plus, 200,000,000 are adults, 100 million actually vote, 50 million are locked into the GOP, and half of those - 25 million - are conservatives, well Limbaughs weekly audience is 22 million, and I think those anchors realize this number break down and that's why they use it) at any rate ... generally speaking the "right" isn't opposed to NAFTA. I don't know where you got this from. I know the Buchanaites are opposed to it, unions are, Perot was, but I distictly remember Rush applauding Gore for decimating Perot on Larry King Live over the issue. The Buchana wing may oppose this but that's a small percentage to say the least, otherwise he'd of won something, somewhere.
On Reagan principles and the size of government: I can't make you understand what you refuse to believe just because you like finding chinks in Ron's armor, or those who would envoke his name. If Tip O'neal & the gang wanted a 35% growth rate in government - OUTSIDE of military expenditures - and Reagan holds it at 20, WITH military expenditures, then he can rightly claim to have curbed the growth & size of government. And to say he spent like a New Deal president is innacurate in the extreme.Reagan's expenditures in government growth were primarily military, not federal "welfare" (literal definition) or public project roles (outside of WWII military expenditures)like FDR (that didn't work then anyway, outside of the psychological effect that at least he, FDR, was seen as doing "something" as opposed to Hoover sitting on his hands).
Once more I will describe what conservatives mean when invoking his name - smaller more efficient government - which we on the right have never lumped the military into - and REDUCING THE RATE OF GROWTH, and redirecting the money that is spent into more efficient modes IS IN FACT "smaller more efficient government."
Now, you can play this game of using his numbers versus FDR's and say "Reagan's no conservative and he spent like a New Deal president" all you want, and in any sane circle you'll have people telling you substance abuse is a real disease, and perhaps you should seek help. Politically speaking "conservatism" is the apt name for a man, whom as president, curbed the government's non military rate of growth while growing the military budget. I could do the same thing regarding the term "liberal" and the ACLU or the Democrat party - they're about as "tolerant" to Christianity as David Duke at a Harlem Reinessaince fair. But I realize what "politically speaking" the term liberal now represents as opposed to using the text book definition and asking athiest ACLU lawyers to stop self-envoking the term 'liberal." But why do that? It's beating your head against a rock hoping to put the genie back in the bottle - the term means something other then what a text book in poli-sci will tell you, and I accept that, and you need to do that concerning "conservatism."
Politically speaking Reagan is the preeminent CONSERVATIVE of our time, still. He lead a conservative movement, governed as a conservative, and was guided by conservative principles, PERIOD. Even you, in a fleeting moment of embracing reality, recognized this when you penned my description as a "Reagn-ite from out West." Do you think I consider myself a New Deal spender? Hardly. If you want to use the poli-sci text book definition, and say "resistant to change", is the only definition for which to judge "conservatism" or throw the military spending into government growth/reduction rates when comparing to New Deal spending in order to describe Reagan as something other then a conservative, rather then come to terms that in the American political landscape Reagan's actions DEFINE the very word "conservative" now, then go ahead and live in that suspended reality, I won't be joining you there.
****
Now, to the subject header ....
I spoke at length on the phone last night with Jambo about the inevitable McCain candidacy, and the likelyhood he would be facing Hillary come the Novemeber decision. Where does that leave rock-rib conservatives like myslef? Jambo pointed out that McCain has always been known as a conservative, he inherited Goldwater's seat for goodness sake, and that it's only 4 or 5 issues where he's been at odds with the right within his own party, and surely that's less then Hillary. And my answer is that since 2001, yes it's only been about 5 issues, but everyone of them has been the VERY hot button issues that has defined all debate outside of the war since 2001 - illegals, judges, free speech (McCain/Fiengold), GITMO. And it drives me nuts that I am rapidly realizing that if the "right" does not support him when he becomes the nominee we are virtually asking for, if not garunteeing, a Madam Clinton presidency.
What to do?
Well, I considered this, McCain may be 10 times more liberal on these issues, or in general, then I am, but he's 100 times more conservative then Hillary. And even with that I found the following appealing - we do not support McCain, allow a Hillary or Barak presidency, they do a horrible job, and presto, come 2012 we (the GOP) will get a solid conservative as a nominee because the country will be thirsty for another Reagan in 2012 assuming Hillary comes off as a Carter like failure (and that's a given in my estimation). It has been floated that this scenario is preferrable to allowing McCain, and his gaggle of moderates, take over, lead, and perhaps redefine the GOP. It's playing politics, and as Jambo pointed out, it's a big risk politically & in terms of national security, i.e. Hill might sign an executiove order closing GITMO (as a holding facility) the first day while McCain will be smarter then that - maybe they end up in Siberia (they'd be begging for a Cuban climate then I can assure you).
But, it's more then that, more serious, and a lot more simple, as I have come to decide. The only question in my mind, during a time of war on many fronts has become this: What do I owe the men dying for me? My little brother is at Fort Hood, and goes back in theater soon. What do I owe him since I am picking his Commander-in-Chief? Does he deserve for me to play party politics because I'm ticked at McCain on campaign-finance reform? Or does he deserve the person that's most likely to supply him with the ammo & orders that will give him the best chance of success?
If it's Hillary/Barak versus McCain, I will pull the lever for John, period.
On Reagan principles and the size of government: I can't make you understand what you refuse to believe just because you like finding chinks in Ron's armor, or those who would envoke his name. If Tip O'neal & the gang wanted a 35% growth rate in government - OUTSIDE of military expenditures - and Reagan holds it at 20, WITH military expenditures, then he can rightly claim to have curbed the growth & size of government. And to say he spent like a New Deal president is innacurate in the extreme.Reagan's expenditures in government growth were primarily military, not federal "welfare" (literal definition) or public project roles (outside of WWII military expenditures)like FDR (that didn't work then anyway, outside of the psychological effect that at least he, FDR, was seen as doing "something" as opposed to Hoover sitting on his hands).
Once more I will describe what conservatives mean when invoking his name - smaller more efficient government - which we on the right have never lumped the military into - and REDUCING THE RATE OF GROWTH, and redirecting the money that is spent into more efficient modes IS IN FACT "smaller more efficient government."
Now, you can play this game of using his numbers versus FDR's and say "Reagan's no conservative and he spent like a New Deal president" all you want, and in any sane circle you'll have people telling you substance abuse is a real disease, and perhaps you should seek help. Politically speaking "conservatism" is the apt name for a man, whom as president, curbed the government's non military rate of growth while growing the military budget. I could do the same thing regarding the term "liberal" and the ACLU or the Democrat party - they're about as "tolerant" to Christianity as David Duke at a Harlem Reinessaince fair. But I realize what "politically speaking" the term liberal now represents as opposed to using the text book definition and asking athiest ACLU lawyers to stop self-envoking the term 'liberal." But why do that? It's beating your head against a rock hoping to put the genie back in the bottle - the term means something other then what a text book in poli-sci will tell you, and I accept that, and you need to do that concerning "conservatism."
Politically speaking Reagan is the preeminent CONSERVATIVE of our time, still. He lead a conservative movement, governed as a conservative, and was guided by conservative principles, PERIOD. Even you, in a fleeting moment of embracing reality, recognized this when you penned my description as a "Reagn-ite from out West." Do you think I consider myself a New Deal spender? Hardly. If you want to use the poli-sci text book definition, and say "resistant to change", is the only definition for which to judge "conservatism" or throw the military spending into government growth/reduction rates when comparing to New Deal spending in order to describe Reagan as something other then a conservative, rather then come to terms that in the American political landscape Reagan's actions DEFINE the very word "conservative" now, then go ahead and live in that suspended reality, I won't be joining you there.
****
Now, to the subject header ....
I spoke at length on the phone last night with Jambo about the inevitable McCain candidacy, and the likelyhood he would be facing Hillary come the Novemeber decision. Where does that leave rock-rib conservatives like myslef? Jambo pointed out that McCain has always been known as a conservative, he inherited Goldwater's seat for goodness sake, and that it's only 4 or 5 issues where he's been at odds with the right within his own party, and surely that's less then Hillary. And my answer is that since 2001, yes it's only been about 5 issues, but everyone of them has been the VERY hot button issues that has defined all debate outside of the war since 2001 - illegals, judges, free speech (McCain/Fiengold), GITMO. And it drives me nuts that I am rapidly realizing that if the "right" does not support him when he becomes the nominee we are virtually asking for, if not garunteeing, a Madam Clinton presidency.
What to do?
Well, I considered this, McCain may be 10 times more liberal on these issues, or in general, then I am, but he's 100 times more conservative then Hillary. And even with that I found the following appealing - we do not support McCain, allow a Hillary or Barak presidency, they do a horrible job, and presto, come 2012 we (the GOP) will get a solid conservative as a nominee because the country will be thirsty for another Reagan in 2012 assuming Hillary comes off as a Carter like failure (and that's a given in my estimation). It has been floated that this scenario is preferrable to allowing McCain, and his gaggle of moderates, take over, lead, and perhaps redefine the GOP. It's playing politics, and as Jambo pointed out, it's a big risk politically & in terms of national security, i.e. Hill might sign an executiove order closing GITMO (as a holding facility) the first day while McCain will be smarter then that - maybe they end up in Siberia (they'd be begging for a Cuban climate then I can assure you).
But, it's more then that, more serious, and a lot more simple, as I have come to decide. The only question in my mind, during a time of war on many fronts has become this: What do I owe the men dying for me? My little brother is at Fort Hood, and goes back in theater soon. What do I owe him since I am picking his Commander-in-Chief? Does he deserve for me to play party politics because I'm ticked at McCain on campaign-finance reform? Or does he deserve the person that's most likely to supply him with the ammo & orders that will give him the best chance of success?
If it's Hillary/Barak versus McCain, I will pull the lever for John, period.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
It was dubbed simply, "THE SPEECH."
In the second position, in black & white, is the speech that put Ronald Reagan on the path to the governership of CA, & eventually the White House. It was one of those perfect moments in history when the aspirations, values and principles of a nation found its perfect orator & representative. If you want to know what "Reagan conservatism" is, it's all there.
Also, there is a link within the Heritage Foundation (a conservative think tank he was routinely affiliated and which thrives to this day) that has a page dedicated to "What would Reagan do?" It attempts to answer these questions in the vein of what problems we face today throyugh his words and actions.
http://wwrdheritage.org/Resources.aspx
You should particularly like Margaret Thatcher's speech on Reagan, and his address to the British Parliment, a great resource .... I get chills listening to it.
Also, there is a link within the Heritage Foundation (a conservative think tank he was routinely affiliated and which thrives to this day) that has a page dedicated to "What would Reagan do?" It attempts to answer these questions in the vein of what problems we face today throyugh his words and actions.
http://wwrdheritage.org/Resources.aspx
You should particularly like Margaret Thatcher's speech on Reagan, and his address to the British Parliment, a great resource .... I get chills listening to it.
Sometimes you are such a child ....
What we on the "right" espouse as "Reagan conservatism", at least my interpretation, is a set of principles that you would then apply to the problems we face today. Strong defense, smaller govt, low taxes, etc.
Now, this means that in a post 9/11 world, when applying the Raegan principle of a strong defense, I believe would lead him to seal the borders, and not grant amnesty as he did in the 80's. On taxes, that speaks for itself. On the size of govt, he would now, as he did then, slow the growth of govt. It is a truism that it grows each fiscal year no matter who's president, but where and how much can have a huge impact and seperate what is "conservative" from what is "liberal.". He increased the budget, size & scope of the military - does that mean he can't then claim to have shrunk the quote, "government?" Technically, as you have pointed out, yes. However, politically speaking to shrink welfare roles, wasteful spending etc, and to slow the rate of growth as compared to the track it was on is, in political speak, "shrinking the the government.' You must recognize that growing the military, although it is obviously a part of the federal government and its budget, is not the quote unquote "government" that conservatives rail against. It is a special p[ortion not to bre lumped in, politically speaking, with cries to slow and reduce the size of government.
You do this every so often, get into this game of semantics and become a stickler for technical definitions. Fine, but the reality is that "political speak" has a language all its own, and in that world, and quite literally if you consider slowing the rate of growth a cut, as democrats always do, Reagan shrunk the government.
Now, should people occasionsly point all this out so people like you don't get all worked up? Maybe, but I would think with your level of intellect it wouldn't be neccessary.
So, to reiterate, "Raegan conservatism" is a set of principles that when applied would mean different specific actions for different presidents depending on the threats/problems they face in their term.
And as I stated I think the principles of a strong national defense, low taxes, smaller more efficient government, and placing a special value on life would lead even Raegan to do specific things different in a 2008 presidency (technically 2009 Titus, if that makes you happy) then he would in 1986, i.e. "seal" (yes, I know it isn't technically sealed, man that is annoying to have to hold your hand on those pure definitions) the border; nothing less then victory in the Middle East; very consructionist judges; a healthy military budget; and scoff at ideas like prescription drugs on the federal tab (I'm talking to you "dubya.")
Get it now? By the way, I think you need to listen to MORE conservative talk, not less. The left channels are so juvenile as to make Howard Sterm look like Margaret Thatcher. You may not agree always ( a given) but atleast the majority of the time there is a real discussion of ideas.
FR
Now, this means that in a post 9/11 world, when applying the Raegan principle of a strong defense, I believe would lead him to seal the borders, and not grant amnesty as he did in the 80's. On taxes, that speaks for itself. On the size of govt, he would now, as he did then, slow the growth of govt. It is a truism that it grows each fiscal year no matter who's president, but where and how much can have a huge impact and seperate what is "conservative" from what is "liberal.". He increased the budget, size & scope of the military - does that mean he can't then claim to have shrunk the quote, "government?" Technically, as you have pointed out, yes. However, politically speaking to shrink welfare roles, wasteful spending etc, and to slow the rate of growth as compared to the track it was on is, in political speak, "shrinking the the government.' You must recognize that growing the military, although it is obviously a part of the federal government and its budget, is not the quote unquote "government" that conservatives rail against. It is a special p[ortion not to bre lumped in, politically speaking, with cries to slow and reduce the size of government.
You do this every so often, get into this game of semantics and become a stickler for technical definitions. Fine, but the reality is that "political speak" has a language all its own, and in that world, and quite literally if you consider slowing the rate of growth a cut, as democrats always do, Reagan shrunk the government.
Now, should people occasionsly point all this out so people like you don't get all worked up? Maybe, but I would think with your level of intellect it wouldn't be neccessary.
So, to reiterate, "Raegan conservatism" is a set of principles that when applied would mean different specific actions for different presidents depending on the threats/problems they face in their term.
And as I stated I think the principles of a strong national defense, low taxes, smaller more efficient government, and placing a special value on life would lead even Raegan to do specific things different in a 2008 presidency (technically 2009 Titus, if that makes you happy) then he would in 1986, i.e. "seal" (yes, I know it isn't technically sealed, man that is annoying to have to hold your hand on those pure definitions) the border; nothing less then victory in the Middle East; very consructionist judges; a healthy military budget; and scoff at ideas like prescription drugs on the federal tab (I'm talking to you "dubya.")
Get it now? By the way, I think you need to listen to MORE conservative talk, not less. The left channels are so juvenile as to make Howard Sterm look like Margaret Thatcher. You may not agree always ( a given) but atleast the majority of the time there is a real discussion of ideas.
FR
Does anyone else see shades of 1976?
Outside of the fact it was the year I was born .... within the GOP, and to an extent the general election, I do. Romney playing the role of Reagan (the conservative outsider who's 4 years too early at this point), McCain (the establishment candidate - have you seen his list of endorsments?), and the Democrat opponent - a very liberal candidate no matter who wins on their side. If it plays out exactly, McCain loses, then we will get 4 disasterous years from either Hill or Barak (mimicing the disgrace that was Carter), and in 2012 Romney emerges as the leader of a new conservative revolution (as did Ronnie).
Just a thought .....
Just a thought .....
Let's talk "Reagan Republican", okay?
Okay, I’ll take the sarcasm in the last post for exactly what its worth. I simply get SO frigging frustrated when I get the very frequent impression that you don’t listen to (or read) anything I have to say.
I, however, DO read what you say. I can’t help but notice that when you discuss topics like terrorism, economics, fiscal spending and immigration, you… and nearly every major conservative pundit on the radio today… keep “harking” back to the Reagan administration with weepy-eyed nostalgia. I want to know why this is.
As we have all seen from the posts concerning our original “Presidential Report Cards”, even I… an admitted Reagan skeptic from as far back as 1980 (Jambo will back me up here!)… gave him the highest grade of all the Presidents we studied. I’m not going to listen to any crap about my “liberal” tendencies tainting my opinion here, as there is NO basis for this fear in reality. I am perfectly able to objectively look at the historical facts concerning Reagan and his time in office. I am questioning that ability in those who so frequently rap themselves up in the mantle of “Reagan-ism”.
In the post “Let’s play a game II” the premise was to find real, measurable faults with the policies and programs of the Reagan Administration. I listed 3 of them (with help from James on the last), but got no response other than flippant humor from Ryan. So, now I will ask, from any conservative Republican that might be reading this blog today, to explain why the label “Reagan” in front of words like “conservative” or “Republican” should mean anything to the very issues we are discussing here in 2008?
For example: Ryan wrote: “…if he wins today it will NOT in fact be an endorsement for the "comprehensive/moderate" reform policy he was formerly affiliated with, just the opposite if you believe what he says - and I wouldn't think anyone would vote for him saying "he doesn't mean that." In fact when he was still trying to defend it is when he was polling under 10%, now he claims to be a Reagan conservative at every opportunity, and BAM, he's the front runner with Romney (an actual conservative) nipping at his heels.”
I take this to mean that the harder, more isolationist position McCain is now endorsing is closer to the Reagan position, correct? Reagan would have “secured the border” from further illegal entry, denied amnesty to illegal immigrants already in the country, forced deportation on those found guilty of entering illegally? Of course, this is assuming (hypothetically speaking, of course) that he were President NOW.
Well, if we are going to make assumptions on what Reagan would do NOW, let’s look at what he did THEN, and compare, okay?
November, 1986. Ronald Reagan signs into Law the Immigration Reform and Control Act (Simpson-Mazzoli Act {Pub.L. 99-603, 100 Stat. 3359}), which, for those that don’t know already, granted AMNESTY to as many as 5,689,000 documented illegal immigrants in the United States. This same IRCA 1986 also mandated the REDUCTION of BP and INS personnel of as much as 11% in the 10 years following its becoming law (this facet of the law was struck down by Bush Sr. in 1991, by the way, and he was criticized by the “conservatives” in the party for doing it!). Critics of this Act have noted that Reagan’s signing of this legislation cemented the “amnesty” precedent into the lawmaker’s mind, and that in the 20 years that followed the amnesty, the number of illegals in this country has risen from nearly 6 million to (possibly) as high as 21 million… a 350% increase. Impressive, aint it?
Another example? Okay, let’s talk free trade. Republican candidates, one and all, call for an end to NAFTA and CAFTA as failed programs… none more vocally than Paul, but Romney and McCain have also called for an end to both agreements, and Huckabee is simply too ignorant to discuss it.
So, if NAFTA/CAFTA is such a bad thing, why did Reagan fight for 8 years as President to get it implemented?
That’s right, all you “Reagan-ites” out there, Big Ron was espousing the wonders of free trade as early as his 1st Inaugural Address in Jan. of 1981. He initiated NAFTA with the US/Canadian Free Trade Agreement in 1985, and looked for the inclusion of Mexico into the agreement eventually.
Let’s talk spending. The GOP candidates want to cut taxes and reduce spending… just like Reagan did. Smaller government is better government… and I believe that. I DO! Reagan didn’t, though…
Reagan cut taxes at a time in America when inflation was higher than it had been since 1947, unemployment was more than 11%, and the entire economy was as stagnant as it had ever been. All well and good, and it DID stimulate the economy over the next four years. However, he did NOT reduce the size of government even one IOTA. The cuts he made to social programs and education didn’t even make a dent in the increased cost of defense over the same time period. On average, the Federal Budget under Reagan called for 18% MORE money ever year he was in office (that’s AVERAGE, mind you… not every year literally). “Trickle-down” economics resulted directly in the market crash of ‘87, and that crash had an awful lot to do with Bush Sr. having to raise taxes and LOSE the ‘92 election. Show me ONE example of Reagan reducing either the SIZE or COST of government, even for ONE YEAR of his administration. Don’t bother, you can’t because he DIDN’T! AND Reagan wasn’t a “war time” President like Bush Jr. and the next guy will be, either.
I will leave my comments on terrorism as they stand in the previous posts… I’m too tired to retype them here.
So, tell me that Reagan wasn’t soft on Iran specifically, terrorism in general, illegal immigration and amnesty, big government deficit spending, NAFTA, et al. Explain to me how Romney, Huckabee, Paul or any other conservative out there can call themselves “Reagan-like” in their positions when the historical facts show me that the exact opposite is true?
I, however, DO read what you say. I can’t help but notice that when you discuss topics like terrorism, economics, fiscal spending and immigration, you… and nearly every major conservative pundit on the radio today… keep “harking” back to the Reagan administration with weepy-eyed nostalgia. I want to know why this is.
As we have all seen from the posts concerning our original “Presidential Report Cards”, even I… an admitted Reagan skeptic from as far back as 1980 (Jambo will back me up here!)… gave him the highest grade of all the Presidents we studied. I’m not going to listen to any crap about my “liberal” tendencies tainting my opinion here, as there is NO basis for this fear in reality. I am perfectly able to objectively look at the historical facts concerning Reagan and his time in office. I am questioning that ability in those who so frequently rap themselves up in the mantle of “Reagan-ism”.
In the post “Let’s play a game II” the premise was to find real, measurable faults with the policies and programs of the Reagan Administration. I listed 3 of them (with help from James on the last), but got no response other than flippant humor from Ryan. So, now I will ask, from any conservative Republican that might be reading this blog today, to explain why the label “Reagan” in front of words like “conservative” or “Republican” should mean anything to the very issues we are discussing here in 2008?
For example: Ryan wrote: “…if he wins today it will NOT in fact be an endorsement for the "comprehensive/moderate" reform policy he was formerly affiliated with, just the opposite if you believe what he says - and I wouldn't think anyone would vote for him saying "he doesn't mean that." In fact when he was still trying to defend it is when he was polling under 10%, now he claims to be a Reagan conservative at every opportunity, and BAM, he's the front runner with Romney (an actual conservative) nipping at his heels.”
I take this to mean that the harder, more isolationist position McCain is now endorsing is closer to the Reagan position, correct? Reagan would have “secured the border” from further illegal entry, denied amnesty to illegal immigrants already in the country, forced deportation on those found guilty of entering illegally? Of course, this is assuming (hypothetically speaking, of course) that he were President NOW.
Well, if we are going to make assumptions on what Reagan would do NOW, let’s look at what he did THEN, and compare, okay?
November, 1986. Ronald Reagan signs into Law the Immigration Reform and Control Act (Simpson-Mazzoli Act {Pub.L. 99-603, 100 Stat. 3359}), which, for those that don’t know already, granted AMNESTY to as many as 5,689,000 documented illegal immigrants in the United States. This same IRCA 1986 also mandated the REDUCTION of BP and INS personnel of as much as 11% in the 10 years following its becoming law (this facet of the law was struck down by Bush Sr. in 1991, by the way, and he was criticized by the “conservatives” in the party for doing it!). Critics of this Act have noted that Reagan’s signing of this legislation cemented the “amnesty” precedent into the lawmaker’s mind, and that in the 20 years that followed the amnesty, the number of illegals in this country has risen from nearly 6 million to (possibly) as high as 21 million… a 350% increase. Impressive, aint it?
Another example? Okay, let’s talk free trade. Republican candidates, one and all, call for an end to NAFTA and CAFTA as failed programs… none more vocally than Paul, but Romney and McCain have also called for an end to both agreements, and Huckabee is simply too ignorant to discuss it.
So, if NAFTA/CAFTA is such a bad thing, why did Reagan fight for 8 years as President to get it implemented?
That’s right, all you “Reagan-ites” out there, Big Ron was espousing the wonders of free trade as early as his 1st Inaugural Address in Jan. of 1981. He initiated NAFTA with the US/Canadian Free Trade Agreement in 1985, and looked for the inclusion of Mexico into the agreement eventually.
Let’s talk spending. The GOP candidates want to cut taxes and reduce spending… just like Reagan did. Smaller government is better government… and I believe that. I DO! Reagan didn’t, though…
Reagan cut taxes at a time in America when inflation was higher than it had been since 1947, unemployment was more than 11%, and the entire economy was as stagnant as it had ever been. All well and good, and it DID stimulate the economy over the next four years. However, he did NOT reduce the size of government even one IOTA. The cuts he made to social programs and education didn’t even make a dent in the increased cost of defense over the same time period. On average, the Federal Budget under Reagan called for 18% MORE money ever year he was in office (that’s AVERAGE, mind you… not every year literally). “Trickle-down” economics resulted directly in the market crash of ‘87, and that crash had an awful lot to do with Bush Sr. having to raise taxes and LOSE the ‘92 election. Show me ONE example of Reagan reducing either the SIZE or COST of government, even for ONE YEAR of his administration. Don’t bother, you can’t because he DIDN’T! AND Reagan wasn’t a “war time” President like Bush Jr. and the next guy will be, either.
I will leave my comments on terrorism as they stand in the previous posts… I’m too tired to retype them here.
So, tell me that Reagan wasn’t soft on Iran specifically, terrorism in general, illegal immigration and amnesty, big government deficit spending, NAFTA, et al. Explain to me how Romney, Huckabee, Paul or any other conservative out there can call themselves “Reagan-like” in their positions when the historical facts show me that the exact opposite is true?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
