Posted on 01/17/2006 10:53:56 AM PST by Reagan Man
When Rep. John Shadegg jumped into the race for House majority leader last week, he called himself a "Reaganite" who would bring back the Gipper's vision of limited government. Rep. John Boehner, also running for majority leader, is sounding a similar note, quoting the 40th president extensively in his 37-page proposal on how to get the party back on track.
It's telling that now, five years into the second Bush presidency, conservatives are still looking for the next Ronald Reagan to champion their ideas in Washington.
Both Messrs. Boehner and Shadegg are promising to bring Reagan back because over the past five years the party appears to have been seduced by the very forces it came to Washington to overturn--rampant spending with expansive new federal entitlements.
~snip~
Of course, limited government wasn't original to Reagan, and many of his ideas are inherent in President Bush's governing philosophy, such as combating the nation's enemies by spreading freedom around the world. But it was Reagan who branded these ideas into the nation's consciousness by using them to remake one of the two dominant political parties. And it was Reagan who proved to be the change agent in Washington.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
Amen. Amen. Amen.
National security and lighthouses ... What's complicated about that?
ping
Mike Pence for President!
fyi
At this point I am so cynical, that I don't think limited government conservatives can get elected, and if they do, they'll change as soon as they get there.
It's all talk. And too many people want want want from the feds.
This is the main reason Republicans are going to lose the next two elections: they're as bad as the Dems. Enough of both parties. Vote Libertarian.
Reagan was one of a kind, never to be duplicated. It's the equivalent of looking for the new Washington, or Franklin, or Lincoln.
GWB will be remembered as a great president, despite the spending (which Reagan did not control very well either). He is reshaping the world while being vehemently opposed by evil and the traitorous libs in our own country. He will be victorious, just as Reagan was.
Whomever he is, perhaps he is only 34 at the moment...
GWB may very well end up rated higher than President Reagan due to his successful battle with Islamofacists. I think Gw is going to be very high on the list of Presidents due to his accomplishments.
Herman Cain vowed not to drink the water. Course, we didn't send him. Maybe the problem is that the message of limited government you're always ranting about just isn't what the people want any more.
And too many people want want want from the feds.
I guess you're right. We might as well just vote for the Democrats, it's better to get it over with quick than the slow, agonizing death we've been suffering.
Right?
Can I just sit on the sidelines and watch?
Well, it certainly wouldn't hurt! :)
So the Republicans might give me only half of what I'm looking for, but with the Libertarians I can be assured of that (as well as the other 50% being a lot of things that I don't agree with).
Or, I could just wind up handing a close race to the Democrat.
I don't think I'll vote Libertarian, all the same.
>>>>GWB will be remembered as a great president ...
Maybe, but that isn't the point. The current POTUS doesn't support limited government and besides, Bush is in the twilight of his Presidency. Even with a GOP controlled Congress, the federal bureaucracy has been expanded more in the last five years then at any time in the last 40 years.
You're right, there will never be another Reagan and come 2009 conservatives maybe missing Bush43 in the White House. But this is all about advancing a conservative agenda for the future of the Republican Party. Similiar to the conservative agenda that was advanced by Reagan.
I wish Reagan in his prime could have debated Clinton in his... It would have been interesting to watch.
You are very incorrect regarding your Reagan statement on spending:
+President Reagan cut the budget of eight agencies out of fifteen during his first term, and ten out of fifteen during his second term.
+President George W. Bush has cut none of the agencies' budgets during his first term.
+President Reagan is the only president to have cut the budget of the Department of Housing and Urban Development in one of his terms (a total of 40.1 percent during his second term).
+President Reagan is the only president to have cut the budget of the Department of Transportation. He cut it by 10.5 percent during his first term and by 7.5 percent during his second term.
+During his first term in office, President Reagan cut the real budget of the Department of Education by 18.6 percent, while President Nixon increased it (that is the education part of what was then the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare) by 19.1 percent. That budget increased by 22.2 percent under Bush 41 and by 38.5 percent under Carter. Our current president has increased it by a whooping 67.6 percent.
+Reagan managed to cut the budget of the Department of Commerce by 29 percent in constant dollars during his first term and by 3 percent during his second one. President Clinton by contrast increased the department's budget by 24 percent in his first term and then by 96.7 percent in his second term.
+President Reagan cut the real budget of the Department of Agriculture by 24 percent during his second term in office.
+President Reagan never cut the budgets of the departments of Defense, Health and Human Services, Justice, or State.
Actually, I'm only 28.
;-)
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.