Michael Reagan: The GOP Should Dump Its 'Litmus Test'

Front Page Magazine ^ | Feb 16, 2007 | Mike Reagan, the eldest son of President Ronald Reagan, heard on more than 200 talk radio stations

[meg88]

The GOP Should Dump Its Litmus Test By Michael Reagan FrontPageMagazine.com | February 16, 2007

The philosopher Diogenes is said to have wandered around ancient Greece holding a lantern and seeking to find an honest man.

My fellow Republicans, sans lanterns, are now wandering around the political landscape seeking to find the perfect Republican presidential candidate.

I don’t know if Diogenes ever found that honest man, but I do know that those Republicans are never going to find the perfect candidate, simply because he does not exist.

Some Republicans insist that the only perfect candidate would be a clone of my Dad, Ronald Reagan. Aside from the fact that there is no such thing, it’s important to recognize that Ronald Reagan, as he often admitted, was anything but perfect.

One of the criticisms about former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney focuses on his record concerning the abortion issue. We are told by the modern day Diogenes clones that he can’t be trusted to fight abortion because he once, more or less, supported a woman’s right to butcher her baby.

It may come as a surprise to these purists, but Ronald Reagan once supported abortion too. Yet nobody ever questioned his strong pro-life credentials after his conversion to Republicanism. They accepted his sincerity. Why can’t they accept Mitt Romney’s?

Romney’s record shows he should be totally acceptable to all conservatives, yet because of one dubious question concerning the validity of his conversion to the pro-life side, he is deemed unsuitable to carry the conservative banner.

The same is true of Rudy Giuliani. On every major issue, he is a solidly conservative and extraordinarily adept executive, but because he backs abortion and some form of gun control, America’s mayor -- the hero of 9/11 and the man who did the impossible by cleaning up New York -- is all but ruled out as a 2008 candidate.

Not one of the major candidates is free of some real or imagined flaw that offends some conservatives.

This is madness, and if it does not stop, the GOP is going to lose the presidential election in 2008. In the search for the perfect candidate we are going to end up with an imperfect candidate. Keep in mind the truism that agreement with someone on most issues and disagreement on others is seen as normal, but should you agree with someone on every single issue imaginable … well… to put it plainly, psychologists say you’re nuts.

I recently got a letter from a conservative Christian organization that asked me if the current GOP candidates are the best the Republican Party has to offer.

“Is it possible that GOP conservative ranks are this thin?” the letter writer asked. “Has the GOP nothing better to offer? Should not pro-family pro-life voters also want a low taxes and limited government candidate before they vigorously support him? Increased taxes and expanded government hurts everyone. Was Ronald Wilson Reagan an anomaly and did he represent the values of his party?

“These GOP candidates,” the letter instructed me, “are little better than Bob Dole, Gerald Ford, or [George] H.W. Bush. Did anyone notice they all lost?”

This makes me wonder if anybody can stand up to the litmus test these people are applying to candidates.

Ronald Reagan had one litmus test he applied to candidates. Were they Republicans? If they were he backed them all the way. He would let the party choose the candidate and he would support and vote for the candidate. He didn’t go sniffing around trying to find some flaw in their character or their past. Once nominated, they were his choice.

And nobody was more candid in admitting that he was anything but perfect than my Dad. He knew that like all men, he had his flaws and he spent a lifetime combating them. Had today’s GOP litmus test been seriously applied to him, he could not have passed the test.

The Democrats don’t have litmus tests. If the nominee is a Democrat, they support their candidate all the way, and if they lose it isn’t because they didn’t fight like demons for their man or woman.

If we want to win in 2008, Republicans had better wake up, and quit talking Ronald Reagan and start being like Ronald Reagan.

[Soul Seeker]

It may come as a surprise to these purists, but Ronald Reagan once supported abortion too. Yet nobody ever questioned his strong pro-life credentials after his conversion to Republicanism. They accepted his sincerity. Why can’t they accept Mitt Romney’s?

Reagan's conversion didn't occur in one election span, as well he was involved in the movement prior. Surely Michael knows THAT. Nor did Reagan, after losing a run to be the nominee, become suddenly pro-choice. Ergo, his conversion was deemed genuine. Get back to me on Romney after enough time has passed to prove it hasn't been cynically motivated.

And, rudy a conservative? Beautiful. Now conservatives are trying to re-define conservatisism because they are desperate to have an "R" in the W.H. And that is what is driving Michael here. fear of a Dem i the W.H. What I fear is sanctioning two Liberals for the W.H., one from Reps and one from dems. because then conservatism will really be in trouble.

[Txsleuth]

You DO know that Ronald Reagan raised taxes, gave AMNESTY to illegal immigrants...AND pulled troops from Beirut, after over 200 of them were slaughtered...without fighting back.

I think Michael has a LOT more right to his opinion of his Dad than anyone here.

[Huck]

I don't agree. The worst case is someone who can actually win.

[unkus]

That's right. Hitlery in the White House IS NOT AN OPTION-PERIOD!!!!

[zarf]

Gee, you mean I'm not a gun grabbing baby killer?

Who knew!

[Wallace T.]

The Democrats will tolerate some deviation from lockstep liberalism in the South and in rural or blue collar Northern areas. However, that deviation is often rhetorical and not actual, and as the representatives become acclimated to the Washington scene, they tend to absorb liberal values in areas like social issues and national defense, against the overall sentiments of the majority of their constituents. Two good examples of this tendency are Congressman John Murtha and former Democratic Minority Leader Dick Gephardt, both from socially conservative districts, who were more politically moderate at the beginning of their careers.

OTOH, there is no countervailing conservative drift among moderate to liberal Republicans elected from the Northeast, the Upper Midwest, and California. If anything, exposure to the Washington milieu tends to move conservatives leftward, especially when a non-conservative Republican President is in office.

[Reagan Man]

The spirit of the 11th commandment was inside Ronald Reagan. He was running for office and he had to deal with his conservative base and the moderate-centrist-liberal contingent of Republicans. That was the Reagan coalition. Social and fiscal conservatives. All great leaders really don't run around slamming their own. Usually. Except today, its a bit different story. If you look at the direction the GOP has taken in the last six years, I think if Reagan was around today and engaged with political reality, he'd be appalled at whats happened to Republicans. Also, Reagan denounced his membership in the Democratic Party, because they moved away from their traditional agenda. Reagan saw a home in the GOP. Reagan changed political parties once, he could do it again.

Btw, outside of Rudy, I don't bash any of the candidates. Look it up.

[JAKraig]

Giuliani was a good mayor. Maybe the people in NY think they shouldn't have guns, I disagree and can live somewhere else. If guns are taken away everywhere then I can't go somewhere else to have a gun.

If liberals want to kill unborn babies I don't care where they live it is wrong and immoral and even though it is only one issue I could not in my heart face myself in the mirror if I were to help elect someone who promoted the cause of abortion.

I understand the argument, we have to run someone who is electable, any republican would be better than Hillary, and it is true. I would rather support someone who at least paid lip-service to the anti abortion cause than someone who supports abortion openly. A good president that appoints good judges will take care of the abortion problem on a national level. This will allow us to reign in abortion at the state level.

I personally love Newt but think he could never be elected. I am not a Mitt Romney fan but think that he might be electable. Unfortunately I think that it is possible that McCain could be elected in the primary and will be the likely choice. He could never win against Hillary, even if he could I'm not sure he would be the better president

People like Hunter and Newt would be crucified in the press and never be able to overcome that hurdle. Romney is so good looking that the press will treat him a little better than they otherwise would another Conservative. Since he comes from the northeast and was somewhat well liked he could even get some favorable press. Now if he were to ask Condi to be his running mate it would be a lock.

I think the prospects for a Republican winning in '08 are slim to none, for this reason we all need to get behind whomever it is we wind up with as a candidate. Even if (heaven forbid) the nominee for the Republican party is McCain

[unkus]

Anything concerning Hitlery Clinton is a worsc case scenario

[PzLdr]

A President can use the bully pulpit to speak out on any issue, including abortion, in an effort to sway public opinion. Rudy when he was speaking out in favor of abortion, including partial birth abortion, was silent on the subject during his Mayoralty. So you think he's going to change that position?

And for all you "strict constructionist" fans, there is now a sizable body of case law supporting abortion. That's legal precedent. You don't need strict constructionists, you need conservative activists on the bench to ignore stare decisis. Want to bet Rudy appoints any of THOSE to the bench?

[kabar]

Reagan also signed the infamous P.L. 98-21, (H.R. 1900) in 1983 that raised the SS retirement age, increased SS taxes, and reduced benefits. He kept the Ponzi scheme going. No one is perfect.

[EternalVigilance]

Be sure to slam everyone who dosen't agree with you as totally misguided...or worse.

I will when he's so obviously misguided. Doesn't matter what his last name is. And, actually, my comment went pretty easy on him, considering the stakes.

[pissant]

POST OF THE DAY

POST OF THE DAY

POST OF THE DAY

[Wonder Warthog]

"Two words - Character issues."

Guiliani doesn't seem to be having any trouble with pretty much the SAME "character issues" that Newt supposedly is saddled with.

[rlmorel]

I should point out that in my opinion...both Newt and Rudy are nearly non-electable.

This shouldn't count, but unfortunately...it does. Both of them have high negatives amongst sizable segments of the voting block, and it is because of the MSM in both cases.

Their negatives are the cudgels liberals always try to beat conservatives over the head with during an election cycle: Uncaring, Greedy Fascists.

You know and I know this is just spin, and as for uncaring, a persuasive argument could (and should) be made that tough welfare reform helped many more than it hurt, and fiscal responsibility plus lower taxes=a booming economy. But it will be a cold day in hell before we ever hear that disseminated to voters by the MSM. The MSM, while slowly rotting, is not yet dead.

[freedomfiter2]

I pray that those on this site that keep cramming that lie down the throats of those of us that keep him in perspective..rather than beatifying him..


It's just that most of us have never seen a GOP President that was even halfway conservative other than Reagan.

[M. Thatcher]

the Reps have nobody but themselves to blame for not providing me a conservative to vote for.

PROVIDING YOU?

This is a democratic process in which the nominee competes for support, in the form of contributions and votes. If you aren't "provided" with a conservative you want to vote for, it's because too few of your fellow citizens share your views, period.

The notion that somehow a nominee is forced on you is petulant. I believe we all had a name for this attitude in 2000: Sore-Loserman.

[Major Matt Mason]

The same is true of Rudy Giuliani. On every major issue, he is a solidly conservative and extraordinarily adept executive, but because he backs abortion and some form of gun control,

I'm not a one issue voter, but I have a real problem with Rudy's stance on guns. The other problem I have with Giuliani and Romney is that they are pols from the northeast (where I live, sadly). Politicians, both R and D, have ruined the northeast, to the point that they are driving people out of this region. The GOP in this region is a complete joke when compared to the party in the rest of the country, except for CA and maybe IL. Why in the world would we want a candidate that would export to the rest of the country the leftist politics that are practiced in the northeast?

[NorCalRepub]

.....I don't know what YOU mean.....but what I mean is that many FReepers call those exact names to anyone that doesn't adhere to their prerequisites....so if they are not hypocrites, they will show their faces and tell Michael Reagan is a POS RINO.....but I expect many are cowards that will shirk in the shadows...

[George W. Bush]

throwing out that 11th commandment during a PRIMARY campaign is ridiculous.

Supporters of the current frontrunner always resort to it.