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.

[Jim Robinson]

Ahem!

(see tag line)

[bray]

Most of us have not decided and if you have tell us why to vote for your Candidate, not why not to vote for another one.

Pray for W and Our Troops

[Paul Ross]

I never would have suspected he'd tuck tail and run in the face of adversity. Buck it up Reagan!

Agreed.

I wouldn't have suspected it either.

Particularly since he authored this:

He needs to get out of California more.

I think it would also help him reach for the political maturity his father ultimately attained by travelling and speaking in face-to-face with working America. Which he did by travelling and speaking to the large workforces of General Electric. It might temper some things, while increasing resolve in others.

I would like an open discussion with him on the particulars of his faith. It would be inspiring I'm hoping.

[Paul Ross]

RINOs don't stay home. RINOs demand we nominate RINOs...and THEN they go and vote for the Democrat anyways.

Bump! I think we saw a lot of that disgraceful conduct in certain East Coast states (which I won't name) in the last go around.

[areafiftyone]

I've seen it and like I always say - that is your opinion and I respect it. But I don't see Rudy as this horrible creature you see. What I have seen of him as mayor impressed me. I've seen calmness in the face of danger, I've seen a love for this country, I seen him turn around a city the size of a small country from a third world crime ridden filth infested city into a clean, low crime place where people can live. I've seen fiscal responsibility, I've seen him do things that have guts like throwing out Arafat while Clinton and his cohorts (Rangle, Schumer and Hillary and others in Washington howled and screamed that Rudy was an embarrassment for them) and I've seen him shove a $10 million dollar check back in a Saudi's face because he insulted the U.S. and blamed us for 9/11 all the while Cynthia McKinney and other Democrats tried to get the check back and accept it. What congress critter would do that if they were faced with that? Not many I tell you. They would go to Arafat and the Saudi prince for their photo-op for their .gov website. Rudy is tough and we need tough. While I understand about the three issues that bother you guys - abortion, gays and guns. I don't think anything will be touched on that. It will be the courts deciding that kind of stuff and I believe him when he says he will appoint the kind of judges we want. He has always kept his word and did what he said he was going to do regardless of how much it irked some people. And boy did it irk people! He was called every name in the book and then some from Facist to Hitler to some four letter ones and the ones who called him that were Democrats. But it worked - everything he did worked.

[Soul Seeker]

The truth can be harsh. ;-

Like I've said before, on a personal level I don't dislike the man. But i do NOT wish to emulate some of the personal choices he seemingly has no regrets about, nor embrace his beliefs. I respect he's a liberal that got it right on the war. I respect Leiberman for the same reason. I respect koch. But I am not going to abandon every belief system I hold to elect a Liberal republican to the W.H. when there is no cause to do so. We're not talking about a CT senate seat where a conservative could never get elected.

At least with leiberman, aside from the war, I could praise his character, despite his one lapse with Gore. So if we, as conservatives, are now into backing Libs for the highest GOP ticket then I'm joining the leiberman team. Now I just need to get him to switch. I'm certain once he has that valued "R" by his name they'll be going just as gaga over him as they do every other liberal.

or, we can all remember conservatism stands for more then the "R" and get serious about nominating a real conservative. As in someone that didn't flop over the last four years when they decided to run for GOP ticket, as in someone that isn't more liberal then Hillary, as in someone that doesn't consider the MSM to be his home base.

And if these leaves any marks.. Well, welcome to primary season. LOL

[freedomfiter2]

I'm sorry, I'm not sure what post you are refering to.

[Cincinna]

Looks like Michael Reagan is getting ready to support Rudy.

I guess Ronette is supporting Her Heinous, so it balances out.

[freedomfiter2]

What we should be asking is how many RINO women, ala Christine Todd Whitman, will jump ship to vote for Hitlary just because she is female.


I don't want to speculate so close to dinner.

[Paul Ross]

...when I was a Goldwater fan in the 60's that conservatives where people who, were fiscally conservative, for smaller government,judicial restraint, strong defense, fair free trade, pro business, less regulation, etc. I don't ever remembering it being about social issues at all.

The ongoing rampage of unrestrained spending and social engineering engendered by LBJ's War on Poverty unleashed a barrage on the social fabric that didn't yet exist when Goldwater ran in '64...although it was on the horizon. Then Nixon promoted still further Federalizing with his Revenue Sharing, and strategy of out-spending the Rats...and then the Roe v. Wade decision hit. The liberals hadn't been able to get a national abortion right through Congress, so this judicial circumvention neatly gave them victory...which has been a repeated strategy exploited by the Usual Suspects (such as the ACLU) ever since. This was social engineering...on steroids... from the branch of government that was supposed to be restrained, and a bulwark of precedent and stare decisis.

This of course was in 1972 and well after Goldwater as well. The Roe decision is now followed by Roe v. Gomez etc and has thus morphed a limited ruling into an essentially unrestrained right to infanticide so long as some tame physician willingly perjures themselves to claim there is a danger to the "mother."

[freedomfiter2]

I'm pushing back against those demanding GOP loyalty to Rudy... now!


You vill do aas you are toldt.

[longtermmemmory]

Rudy thinks the Clinton democrats will vote for Rudy Guiliani rather than Hilary Clinton.

[Jim Robinson]

Giuliani moves the Republican party abruptly to the left (actually, more like takes it over the cliff) and accelerates the headlong slide into socialism.

Defending life and liberty are the mainstays of the conservative movement. Remove these and the entire movement collapses.

Buck it up people. The Republican party must not become a haven for social liberalism, abortionists, gay unionists and gun grabbers! If it does, it will cease to exist as a viable political party.

Republicans fight for life and Liberty!! There's nothing more precious.

[Conservativegreatgrandma]

Dutch should come back from the dead and slap the hell out of his idiot son.

That is unfair. If you were referring to Ron, Jr., it would be applicable but not to Michael. He's anything but an idiot. He's doing a great job of carrying on his dad's legacy.

[Go Gordon]

Duncan Hunter - Whom nobody outside the base has heard of.

There is over a year to the primaries and almost 21 months til the general election. If he's the best suited for the job, he'll rise to the top.

[Peach]

I was delighted to see that Ronald Reagan's son Michael agrees with you!

And so does Rep. Sessions (98% lifetime conservative voting record).

And so do a host of other people.

But hey, if the party wants to throw itself off a cliff for abortion, guns and gays, I say we sit back and watch the party.

[longtermmemmory]

I know more than a few republican women who are just as feminist as a california democrat when it comes to quotas or set asides for women.

They are very much quota queens when their qualifications do not meet the criteria or they are losing in the real business world.

[jwalsh07]

Rudy thinks the Clinton democrats will vote for Rudy Guiliani rather than Hilary Clinton.

Pride goeth before the fall.

Rudy will get crushed in New York.

[Plateau]

What you seem to be missing is his stance on the issues prior to his announcement for president! His epiphany on "HANNITY" is laughable. I don't hate Rudy but, we can do better. Your willingness to educate us on political realities is well, how can I say it, so generous. Trying to make people feel guilty for deeply held beliefs is just pouring gas on the fire. Opinion is one thing, ridicule of people for their beliefs doesn't make you superior, it makes you seem less intelligent.

[nopardons]

Post #9.

Look at the bottom of any reply, you clearly see the post # at the bottom.