Posted on 02/02/2008 10:03:33 AM PST by SE Mom
I don't think most conservatives are interested in McCain’s class ranking at Annapolis or how many planes he was nearly killed in. There have been a few posts here mentioning it. And I appreciate all the references to Reagan's efforts to advance his agenda, which did involve making compromises with a Democrat House and, throughout most of his presidency, a Democrat Congress. And if John McCain showed this kind of temperament and vision in his political career, I don't think most who object to his candidacy during the primaries would be objecting to it today. I think we would be enthusiastically supporting him.
Painting Reagan as a tax-and-spend Republican, who basically went along with Washington and appointed a bunch of moderates to the Supreme Court, in an apparent attempt to build up McCain's conservative and leadership credentials and mollify his critics, has the opposite effect mostly because it is inaccurate. It reminds me of Bill Clinton's supporters using Thomas Jefferson's alleged adultery to explain the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
Reagan challenged his party from the Right. He sought the Republican nomination in 1968 against Richard Nixon and lost. He sought the nomination against Gerald Ford in 1976 and lost. He fought the Republican establishment in 1980 as well, including Bob Dole, Howard Baker, and George H. W. Bush, and won. McCain has challenged his party from the Left. I don't know how many more times I and others have to lay out his record to prove the point. To put a fine point on it, when he had to, Reagan sought compromise from a different set of beliefs and principles than McCain. It does a great disservice to historical accuracy and the current debate to continue to urge otherwise.
Let me be more specific, rather than spar in generalities. Reagan would never have used the phrase "manage for profit" as a zinger to put down a Republican opponent. Reagan believed in managing for profit because he believed in free enterprise. That doesn't mean he didn't agree to certain tax increases (after fighting for and winning the most massive tax cuts in modern American history), which were incidentally to be accompanied by even greater spending cuts. McCain believes the oil companies are evil, and said it during one of the debates. Among his first acts as president, Reagan decontrolled the prices of natural gas and crude oil with the stroke of his pen because, as he understood, profit funds research and exploration. Reagan had a respect for and comprehension of private property rights and markets that McCain does not. There never would have been a Reagan-Lieberman bill, in which the federal government's power over the private sector would have trumped the New Deal.
Reagan opposed limits on political speech. The Reagan administration ended the Fairness Doctrine and the media ownership rules, which helped create the alternative media that McCain despises. Reagan's reverence for the Constitution would never have allowed him to support, let alone add his name to, something like McCain-Feingold.
As for Reagan's Supreme Court appointments, it is wholly misleading to simply list those who turned out to be disappointing as evidence of Reagan's willingness to compromise on judicial appointments or appoint moderates, or whatever the point was. In Sandra Day O'Connor's case, he was assured by Barry Goldwater and Ken Starr that she was an originalist. While on the Court, she started out on fairly sound footing, and then lurched toward the Left, something Reagan could not foresee or control. Yes, Reagan appointed Anthony Kennedy to the Court, but only after: 1. first nominating Bob Bork; 2. then nominating Doug Ginsburg; and 3. again receiving assurances that Kennedy was solid. And, again, Kennedy started out as a fairly reliable originalist, but has "evolved" over the years in ways that no president can prevent. But Reagan also appointed Antonin Scalia and promoted William Rehnquist to chief justice, and he appointed scores of outstanding judges at the district court and appellate levels — the significance of which attorneys like me, who study this issue, fully comprehend and appreciate. (As an aside, as I spent some time at the White House working on judicial selection, Reagan refused to allow the Senate to dictate which judges he would ultimately nominate to the circuit courts.)
Reagan sought to abolish all kinds of federal programs and agencies — from the Department of Education to the Action Agency/VISTA — and the list goes on and on. I imagine it wouldn't be too difficult for someone with the time and inclination, such as a think-tank scholar, to go back and examine the early budgets that Reagan sent to Congress. Am I the only one who remembers all the horror stories in the media portraying Reagan's budgets as setting back the New Deal and Great Society, creating armies of homeless, cutting ketchup from the Food Stamp program, and so forth? But Reagan couldn't get a lot of the cuts he wanted past congressional Democrats. However, he did shutdown the government several times to try to limit spending. Does anyone remember the media stories about Social Security recipients going without checks?
The one area Reagan drastically increased spending was defense. And while McCain is said to be among the most capable of hawks, he used little of his political capital and media savvy to oppose the Clinton cuts — or to warn the nation about the rising threat from al-Qaeda, for that matter. He did not call for the resignation of his good friend Bill Cohen, who was a terrible defense secretary. McCain was not alone, of course. But a more fulsome examination of McCain's senatorial record relating to defense, intelligence, and law enforcement is met mostly with silence or admonitions to avert our eyes.
Reagan would not have led efforts to grant the enemy constitutional and international rights, as McCain has. I believe he would have sided with President Bush. After all, as president, Reagan rejected efforts to expand the Geneva Conventions to cover terrorists. This is a key area of departure for McCain not only from Bush but most national security advocates. But, alas, we must avert our eyes, again.
As for the 1986 Reagan amnesty for illegal aliens, we've been down this road time and again. The bill was carefully reviewed within the Reagan administration, including at the Justice Department (at the time, the INS reported to the attorney general). Reagan agreed that amnesty would be conferred on 2-3 million illegal aliens as a one-time event in exchange for adequate funding for border security. The bill passed in 1987. The border security part of the deal was never enforced. To say that Reagan supported amnesty and no more is to rewrite history. There would have been no Reagan-Kennedy bill, written largely by LULAC and LaRaza.
But we must rewrite history if we are to make the case that McCain is no different from Reagan, Reagan is no different from his predecessors, and Reagan's speeches weren't all that revolutionary. And if we object to such characterizations, then the argument shifts to — well, stop making comparisons to Reagan, Reagan wasn't perfect, the Reagan era is dead, these are different times, etc. Then, if we criticize McCain's record we are told the tone is troubling, we're going to help elect Hillary Clinton if we don't unite behind McCain now (at the beginning of the primaries, no less!), the surge is the only issue that matters, etc.
Look, I do not believe that McCain is a principled conservative. I believe he is a populist hawk in the tradition of a Scoop Jackson. This isn't a perfect comparison, of course, but nothing is ever perfect, is it? In my view, this is why the hawks will support McCain regardless of his record in virtually every other respect. Moreover, they see McCain as the only Republican who has the will or ability or whatever to fight terrorism. I don't. But please, can we at least agree, on National Review's website of all places, to stop dumbing down or dismissing the Reagan record. If you are going to use it, at least be accurate about it. It isn't perfect, but it is far superior to the backhand it received earlier.
02/02 12:52 PM
Must read from Mark Levin
TGO ping
McCain could challenge the Democratic Party from the left.
BUMP for excellence!
All is NOT lost!
We have three days to stop McCain. If you want to help us you don’t even have to leave your house.
The calls you make that connect you to voters could put Mitt over the top, they could mean the difference in determining our next president.
Pass this info on to as many people as possible.
McCain must be stopped!
Let’s Roll.
http://www.mittromney.com/CallatHome
http://towncriernews.blogspot.com/
I heard him on the radio two nights back speaking about McCain. Clear, concise, and correctly.
Speaking of imperfect comparisons, I just realized who McCain reminds me of. He reminds me of Howard Dean.
Dr. Juan Hernandez on John McCains campaign staff as a 'non-paid volunteer' as a McCain spokesman said.
U.S.-born dual citizen Juan Hernandez was in Vincente Fox's cabinet as Director of the Office for Mexicans Living Abroad and is notorious for having said of Mexican Americans on Nightline on June 7, 2001, "I want the third generation, the seventh generation, I want them all to think 'Mexico first.'"
From Amerpundit:
This is a man who insisted that any securing of the borders was racist, and closed-borders proponents were equivalent to Nazis.
By the way, he himself is a dual citizen born in Texas, university—teaching at the University of Texas and on the Vicente Fox cabinet. And he said, “I work with the community in the United States, the Mexican community because I don‘t want them essentially going native on us. We want them continually tied emotionally, linguistically, politically to Mexico, because then they‘ll continue to send money home.”
From GatewayPundit:
Juan Hernandez, head of the Mexican government's Office of Mexicans Living Outside Mexico, told U.S. Representative Tom Tancredo that the North American southwest "is not two countries; it's just a region."
From www.juanhernandez.org:
Last month, when Hernandez appeared to endorse issuing a so-called ''survival kit'' to help Mexican migrants safely cross the border into the USA, U.S. officials criticized the proposal and demanded an explanation. Hernandez quickly backed down.
Hernandez:
"I believe it is time now for Congress to put the issue of immigration on a front burner before the next election cycle causes the issue to become mired in election-year politics."
In 1996, Hernández invited Vicente Fox (then Governor of the Mexican State of Guanajuato) to speak at UT, Dallas and meet George W. Bush (then Governor of Texas) -- a historical meeting that marked a new outlook in Mexico-U.S. relations.
After beating the party that had ruled for over 71 years, President Fox hired Hernandez as the first US-born cabinet member, heading the President’s Office for Mexicans Abroad. Operating from Los Pinos (the Mexican White House), the Office had as its principal objective to serve and dignify the 24 million whom President Fox has called heroes -- the countrymen who live in foreign lands.
Hernandez speaking of banks and illegals:
It is difficult for those who struggle with English to have the self-assurance to open an account and discuss financial transactions when that conversation is more likely to lead to confusion than to certitude. Imagine yourself trying to open a bank account in Paris with only halting knowledge of French. So the first request to financial institutions on my Christmas list is to try to ensure there is at least one person trained to speak Spanish in any branch of your institution.
Hernandez:
We must not only have a free flow of goods and services, but also start working for a free flow of people."
Juan Hernandez also created The Organization for Hispanic Advancement, (HispanA, a non-profit 5O1c3).
From the www.hispanicorganization.com website:
In April of 1996, Juan Hernández, former professor at The University of Texas at Dallas, and Vicente Fox, now President of Mexico, began a long conversation on the need for greater recognition and further advancement of Hispanics in the U.S. and Mexican societies. The conversation was joined by many others over the years, including President George W. Bush, former President Bill Clinton, former President Jimmy Carter, many governors, legislators, business leaders, heads of La Raza, LULAC, Maldef, directors of town-home associations, media experts, migration researchers, priests and pastors.
Interesting article. He could have expanded it to include Romney and Huckabee. They both are challenging the party from the left...unfortunately. |
Agreed. McCain got this nomination by playing the media beautifully. He was on their shows EVERY Sunday; he kissed up to all the personalities, made them feel important.
Seventy-five percent of Tuesday’s Republican voters are not even aware of McCain’s positions on illegal immigration nor his Keating involvement.
Why? He is the MSM’s candidate for the GOP nomination; has been for over two years.
In November we will choose between the right and the left of the Democrat party. McCain IS a Democrat.
I’m pining for the good old days when we had a Dole running as the GOP nominee. At least he had a sense of humor.
Levin nails this particularly pernicious claim by the McCain supporters.
To claim Reagan was for open borders is to also claim he was pro-tax (TEFRA) and protectionist (he was pro "fair", and not pro "free" trade).
All sides want to co-opt the Reagan legacy these days, its critical that those of us who remember don't let them get away with it.
Mark rocks!
Actually, Dole was far better as a candidate than McCain. Dole was prone to compromise way too much, but McCain literally capitulates to the other side and then demonizes our side.
Spamming the threads, I see. Why not start one of your own?
“I read it using my TGO voice. “
Same here. TGO is the greatest!
They don’t call Mark Levin “the Great One” for nothing!
I did. I just believe strongly that this information must get out. This is just one advisor that McLame is using. What other advisors will he use if President??
All politicians have advisors as politicians are only experts at one thing: Being a politician. Therefore, they all depend on their advisors for information and policy platforms.
If this is an example of what McLame is going to choose as an advisor...........
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.