Posted on 02/10/2008 8:15:53 AM PST by NewLand
If I could just take a moment; I had an assignment the other day. Someone asked me to write a letter for a time capsule that is going to be opened in Los Angeles a hundred years from now, on our Tricentennial.
It sounded like an easy assignment. They suggested I write something about the problems and the issues today. I set out to do so, riding down the coast in an automobile, looking at the blue Pacific out on one side and the Santa Ynez Mountains on the other, and I couldn't help but wonder if it was going to be that beautiful a hundred years from now as it was on that summer day.
Then as I tried to write -- let your own minds turn to that task. You are going to write for people a hundred years from now, who know all about us. We know nothing about them. We don't know what kind of a world they will be living in.
And suddenly I thought to myself if I write of the problems, they will be the domestic problems the President spoke of here tonight; the challenges confronting us, the erosion of freedom that has taken place under Democratic rule in this country, the invasion of private rights, the controls and restrictions on the vitality of the great free economy that we enjoy. These are our challenges that we must meet.
And then again there is that challenge of which he spoke that we live in a world in which the great powers have poised and aimed at each other horrible missiles of destruction, nuclear weapons that can in a matter of minutes arrive at each other's country and destroy, virtually, the civilized world we live in.
And suddenly it dawned on me, those who would read this letter a hundred years from now will know whether those missiles were fired. They will know whether we met our challenge. Whether they have the freedoms that we have known up until now will depend on what we do here.
Will they look back with appreciation and say, "Thank God for those people in 1976 who headed off that loss of freedom, who kept us now 100 years later free, who kept our world from nuclear destruction"?
And if we failed, they probably won't get to read the letter at all because it spoke of individual freedom, and they won't be allowed to talk of that or read of it.
This is our challenge; and this is why here in this hall tonight, better than we have ever done before, we have got to quit talking to each other and about each other and go out and communicate to the world that we may be fewer in numbers than we have ever been, but we carry the message they are waiting for.
We must go forth from here united, determined that what a great general said a few years ago is true: There is no substitute for victory, Mr. President.
This is an excerpt from that speech...one that left many of the delegates wondering if they had just nominated the wrong man!
I don’t think Republicans are in a position to learn anything from Reagan. The opportunities keep presenting themselves, and they keep blowing it.
That it was 32 years ago!
I feel like a subject of Commodius reading a speech by Cicero.
As I remember it the delegates who had had their arms nearly broken by all the arm twisting and intimidation were not wandering anything, they were absolutely certain they nominated the wrong man. That said I doubt if any could imagine that how such a resulting political disaster of a President could eventually lead to such a remarkable turnaround for the party but more importantly the country.
“We have got to stop talking about each other and...”
That is the truth of the matter, whether McCain loses in November or not, we have lost the town hall mentality, and that is to our weakening and to the Dhimmicrats strengthening.
I understand your analogy...just don't think it applies here. Maybe I just don't feel so helpless, either.
Exactly...and we didn't get there by giving up, throwing in the towel, or staying home!
>>Maybe I just don’t feel so helpless, either.
I wish I didn’t. But government keeps ratcheting up in size and scope, and the GOP grows ever more liberal.
They are in a position... THEY ARE UNWILLING!
LLS
Thanks for this reminder and this link...
When I first saw your excerpt, I thought it must be a mistake. I didn’t see Reagan’s speech in 1976 and I don’t remember hearing the details (just how well it was received) but I remember this passage as one of his 3-4 minute radio essays that he had been doing for years leading up to his run in 1976.
This was one of the several hundred that he did over those years, and most he had written himself without the aid of speechwriters. In this instance, this “speech” was impromptu — he was called down from the gallery to deliver some “appropriate remarks”, and Reagan just knew what would be appropriate... Also, he could bring it back up, almost word-for-word as he had written it and delivered it for his radio essays probably months (almost a year) earlier.
The point is: Reagan believed these principles... he had thought about these issues and framed his ideas into the language of the 3 minute essay: get the point across clearly and quickly. Put it in terms that your detractors can’t assail (or if they try, they’ll look petty and ignorant). Focus on first principles and trust history — 100 years from now, he knew he would be proven right by having led with the conservative policies he KNEW to be right.
Why hasn’t the GOP produced another Reagan? First, he really was unique and we can’t expect a Reagan every 10-20 or even 30 years. We can hope for one, but it requires both a real Reagan-like individual and the conditions in the country to be right. Reagan was grounded in some 10 years of giving these speeches on the mashed-potato circuit for GE in the 1950’s and 1960’s. He then took those same ideas to Sacramento as Governor... proved the rightness of those ideas during his two terms there (even having done some compromising with the Democrat controlled state-house). He flirted with making a run at the presidency in 1968 but he wasn’t really ready. And then in the lead-up to 1976, he got the opportunity to distill his thinking into these 3 minute radio essays and it helped strengthen his resolve, his understanding, and his commitment to these principles. It helped him as a campaigner (as demonstrated in this “impromptu speech”) but more importantly, it helped him as a leader, internalizing his beliefs that would guide his policies (’What’s your plan for the Cold War?’ Answer: ‘We win, they lose!’).
Where can another Reagan come from? I look to the great (and potentially great) conservative governors we have: Mark Sanford, Bobby Jindahl... I hope Jindahl uses his next 4 years to put a spotlight on what “right thinking” policies can do to turn-around a disaster like Louisiana. I hope the conservative think-tanks are giving him every resource at their disposal to help him with all the challenges he faces.
And down the road, I suspect leaders and “Reagan wantabees” will figure out ways on the Internet to show their ideas and get these ideas circulated and into the mainstream. Rush and Laura Ingraham can only do so much (in large measure, they are doing commercially, what Reagan did with his 3 minute essays, but they have to politicize it much more).
Keep your eye on Bobby Jindahl... he’s the GOP’s version of Obama but of an accomplished background and the potential to demonstrate REAL IDEAS, not the vaccuum that Obama is offering.
JMHO.
Take that little start to the recipe, add in a big helping of illigals to delute the strong taste of conservatism and you have a nice little socialist stew.
UUUMMMMM that's good!
Apparently we didn't learn a damn thing!
McCain might only be 40% conservative. I’ll take it over the absolute certainty of a full-on socialist regime.
As well they might, having most assuredly done so, and thus having helped condemn us all to the national nightmare that was the Carter Administration.
I’ve been watching Bobby Jindahl for some years now, but I fear no man can emerge from the corrosive swamp that is Louisiana politics with both his ideals and his principles intact.
Mark Sanford is a much more likely candidate, but let’s not forget the pugnacious doctor who is an Oklahoma senator.
To paraphrase the scriptures, RINOs "have the form of Reaganism, but deny the power thereof..." The scripture then says: "from such turn away." The savagery and dishonesty with which these people cut into other Republicans belies their claimed support for Reagan and his ideals.
IIRC, you supported the liberal RINO, Willard Myth Romney. Now you're attempting to fictionalize exactly what happened this campaign season in order to give credence to his failed campaign effort.
Look here. Republicans rejected two liberals, Giuliani and Romney. Conservatives had no luck promoting two conservatives, Thompson and Hunter. Whats left are two imperfect choices, two moderates, McCain and Huckabee. Republicans and conservatives can make the best of those remaining choices, or allow the Democrats to win in November.
Whats say you?
Oscar freakin Wilde
OMG!
RONALD REAGAN "A Time for Choosing" I agree with you.
We had all of these confirmed and acknowledged Reaganites proclaiming Mitt Romney to be sufficiently Conservative but no, according to you and yours, they were all wrong. What makes you the better judge? By what authority do you claim to be a better judge of who is and is not Conservative than these people? Reagan never treated Democrats in this manner and yet you are more Conservative than I. You claim to be a Reaganite but do so many things that he never would have done himself. Who then is the real RINO?
>>>>>You claim to be a Reaganite but do so many things that he never would have done himself. Who then is the real RINO?
I'm a Reaganite, yes, but I never claimed to be Reagan incarnate. You Willardites attempted to morph Romney into a Reagan clone for the last year and you failed miserably. The real RINO is Willard Myth Romney. And if you think 4 years, or even 8 years is going to change peoples minds, you're dead wrong!
Romney raised some $90 million --- $35 million of his own cash --- and he couldn't even outlast Mike Huckabee. Good lord, what Reagan could've done with $90 million in a primary campaign.
Roanld Reagan dead is a better president than ANY of the current contenders will be.
Isn’t that the tryth. The fall of the Republic and the traitors within.
Amen. Well said.
He made his case as strongly as possible, backed it up with fact and granted the best of intentions to his opponents. You and yours can only manage: "You're a stupid liar!" Reaganism is far more than a t-shirt you can buy or a ribbon you can wear. It is a belief system which you either live or you don't. Currently, you own the t-shirt.
Just some food for thought; Ronald Reagan was;
* A former Democrat
* A former union leader
* A former 'pro-choice'
* A governor who raised taxes
That was before he was President. While President, he:
* Raised social security taxes
* Withdrew our Marines from Lebanon after they were attacked
Just be careful about that 'plank in your eye' and look at the total weight of a person, the time, the choices, and what's really in their heart.
I'm not a Romney-bot, but I did vote for him in GA over McCain. It was a decision I made, literally, at the voting machine. He's not perfect, and I don't recall anyone here trying to make him the equivalent of Reagan.
So, as RWR advised us, let's stop talking about and among ourselves and get out there and deliver the message...including to whoever our nominee will be this year. We can still influence the process, and thus, the outcome.
That's what Reagan would do.
I watched “The Speech” live, when it happened. I was a foot soldier in the Reagan Revolution. We changed the world.
Again, you miss the thrust of political reality. At one time or another Romney has betrayed the Constitution, Reaganism, the Contract With America and the Republican Party. Again. Reagan was a conservative. Romney has never been a conservative, he was always a liberal. You tried to morph a liberal into conservative for the last year. Didn’t work. Now you crying and whining about having failed. Even with $90 million, Romney couldn’t buy the nomination.
What can be learned is that the next leader is already known, just not as the next leader.
I know all about Reagan. And you taking cheap pot shots at a great American and a great cosnervative just to make Romney look better, shows how desperate you Willardites continue to be. Comparing the Romney record to the Reagan record is a joke. Especially, saying that Reagan was "* A former 'pro-choice'
Don't lie about Reagan. While he wasn't perfect, Reagan was also never pro-choice. Never! After signing an imprefect legisaltion in 1967, Reagan quickly regretted his decision and promoted the pro-life agenda, adamantly. If you have some new found evidence to support you outrageous claim, lets see it. Otherwise, posting falsehoods about Reagan will not win you any friends around this forum.
I have plenty of friends here and elsewhere, and those who took more than 2 seconds to find out something about me know that above all men, I admire, respect, love, and honor President Reagan.
Bye.
Additionally, you have claimed that all of the movement Conservatives who endorsed Mitt Romney, fellow Republicans whose commitment to the cause are beyond questioning, are fools, idiots, senile, stupid, unethical, hormonally challenged or worse. There is nothing Reaganesque about such an attitude. So, unless you can give me a good reason why your opinion is more valid and informed than those of William F Buckley, Rush Limbaugh, James Bopp, Robert Bork, Sean Hannity and so on, or point out an example of where Reagan did something similar, I see no reason to give your opinion the importance you obviously give it.
Finally, you say you were a "foot soldier in the Reagan Revolution." John McCain claims the same. Does that make him a good judge of what is and is not Conservative?
I see, you weren't serious about attacking the Reagan legacy. You were just playing juvenile games by lying about the Reagan record. Gotcha. You can't have it both ways and expect to be taken seriously by FReepers with an attitude like yours.
Btw, not falling for your BS. A liberal like Romney has always been unacceptable to conservatives. Starting with his pro-abortionism and moving onto every issue under the sun. Thankfully, Republicans rejected both Romney and Giuliani.
>>>>>Bye.
Thats right, run and hide. LOL
FRee Republic doesn't exist to debate the pros and cons of liberals like Romney. This isn't a liberal debate society. The facts are clear, you just keep ignoring them because they don't fit your cardboard cut out of Willard the Myth.
>>>>>Additionally, you have claimed that all of the movement Conservatives who endorsed Mitt Romney, fellow Republicans whose commitment to the cause are beyond questioning, are fools, idiots, senile, stupid, unethical, hormonally challenged or worse.
Wrong. You just made that up. Those are your words not mine. Now, control your emotions. I claimed those conservatives who endorsed Romney, abandoned their principles in order to support someone who never represented conservatism in his entire life. A desperate decision and one that backfired.
John McCain was a foot solider in the Reagan Revolution. That is no longer the case for McCain. I was and still am, a Reaganite. But this isn't about McCain. After all, McCain beat Romney, same for Huckabee. Even with all his millions of dollars, Romney couldn't buy the nomination. Now with the liberals Giuliani and Romney gone, we're left with moderate choices to be the nominee. Not a solid conservative candidate left to vote for. That's not my fault. I was a FredHead.
I did no such thing. I listed facts...are you saying he wasn't a democrat? He didn't raise taxes as governor? We didn't withdraw from Lebanon?
My point is that I don't micro-judge Reagan, or anybody, without knowing the total picture first.
Reagan signed a law that included support for abortion, yes he did regret it and spoke out for life throughout his political career from that point onward. In today's world, that would be spun into being 'formerly pro-choice'. If you noticed, I put 'pro-choice' in quotes in my original post because I know very well what he believed.
The difference here is that I don't throw Reagan under the bus for some of his past differences, and you shouldn't be so fast to do the same to others.
Your attitude is very unlike the Reagan I knew...I agree with Reaganesque and maybe you need to re-trace your steps if you truly were a foot soldier under Reagan.
Bye just means I realize that you will likely never get beyond your anger, so please accept my sincere parting as friends.
I asked you to post evidence that Reagan was pro-choice. you didn't and for good reason. It doesn't exist.
The 1967 Therapeutic Abortion Act that Reagan signed into law was advertised as a compassionate law that would be used to deal with the difficult abortion cases. The bill was limited to substantial risk that would gravely impair the physical or mental health of the woman, along with cases of rape and incest. Reagan at no time favored abortion on demand, personally or as a matter of public policy. And Reagan rejected Roe v Wade from the get-go.
Again. If you have evidence to the contrary, post it. So far you've offered nothing to support your outrageous accusations leveled at Reagan on the abortion issue.
Reagan pulling the Marines out of Beirut was a difficult decision but also the right decision. It was a peacekeeping effort turned into a tragic nightmare. At the time, Reagan was fighting the Cold War and the last thing he wanted to do was turn a regional conflict into WWIII! The American people were still recovering from the Vietnam fiasco and would never have supported a big involvement of the US military in a hot war in the ME.
Reagan was a successful Governor. Back in 1966, after he defeated his primary GOP opponent, liberal San Francisco Mayor George Christopher and after he smashed Democrat Governor Pat Brown, Reagan was faced with governing California. The states economy was in worse condition than Reagan had been informed. It took some tax increases, along with “spending cutbacks” and use of the line item veto 943 times, for Reagan to get a handle on budget matters. Once he got California on sound financial footing, Reagan balanced the budget and created hundreds of millions of dollars in surpluses.
Reagan went over the heads of the legislature and spoke directly to the people. He decided to return surpluses to taxpayers in rebate form on four different times, totally over $5,000,000,000 --- OVER FIVE BILLION DOLLARS. With adherence to tight fiscal policy, Reagan left office with a huge surplus.
>>>>>Your attitude is very unlike the Reagan I knew...
Not at all! LOL I'm not about to sit back while a bunch of left leaning know-nothings take endless pot shots at Ronald Reagan. I enjoy the challenge, but so far you're about the weakest of all the anti-Reaganites I've debated in the last 8+ years.
I also love Jindahl's potential and his ideas. But he won't be viable at the national level until he has a record of accomplishment to match them. If he can fix Louisiana, then he'll have that record and be a great candidate. Nobody could fix it between now and the convention so he's not an option this cycle. I'm skeptical even he can fix it soon enough to be viable in 2012. By 2016 he should be ready, if he ever will be, and would still be young enough for a presidential run. Until then we need to minimize the losing and work to regain power, or at least influence, sooner than 2016. Don't wait for Bobby to be able to save us.
Reagan is a sell out!
No way is he a real Reagan Republican!
/sarc
My biggest (an only) problem with Ronald Reagan is that his legacy has raised the bar so high that many Republicans cannot support a lesser candidate without feeling like they are "selling out."
Unfortunately, you still don't and presumably at this point cannot understand my point. It's obviously beyond your comprehension, or at least your desire. You may want to note who started this thread in the first place.
NewLand a liberal, anti-Reaganite! That's got to be the funniest line in the history of FR, let alone the least accurate. I respectfully suggest you no longer make a fool of yourself in public. I'm also tempted to ask everyone on the thread to comment and see what they say.
1) Reagan supported the Republican candidate after losing the nomination. He never bad mouthed him, he was always positive, he stayed on message and moved ahead. Also, I'm certain he voted for Ford in 1976 and did not put his own personal ambitions ahead of the country.
This is a good lesson for many FReepers to come to grips with between now and November.
2) Using todays tactics, liberal pundits and RINOs would look at Reagan's "record" and try to spin it in a campaign to show that he wasn't always a true conservative. Of course, I know and almost everyone knows this is not even remotely close to being true. I'm using this as an example of why we shouldn't be tearing each other apart and should now begin to focus on winning back the Congress and maintaining the White House.
Unfortuantely, one poster on here doesn't understand #2 and has now accused me of being a "liberal, anti-Reaganite".
My wife just had the best laugh of the year when I told her that...so I suppose I should thank the guy.
The support for Romney we witnessed this primary campaign season isn’t something I would brag about, if I was you. Thankfully, I’m not you.
All true. But for some of us who voted on super Tuesday, it wasn't even that simple. We had a choice of Romney, McCain, Huckabee. It's not a stellar choice to say the least.
I prayed hard and struggled with this decision unlike ever before. I truly was undecided until I walked up to the computer (voting device). I voted for Romney because I just couldn't vote for Mccain. I'm not proud of my vote and I wish I had a better choice. But that was the reality, and it is what it is.
Despite my feelings about Mccain, I wouldn't call his supporters the same thing that I'm being called as a reluctant voter for Romney.
All that being said, anything can happen and could happen between now and both conventions, let alone the November election. We may witness something historic. We may get a reprieve. We may get Obama or Hillary.
God is sovereign, my faith is in Him and Him alone. So,I'm not really worried either way.
If you want to defend Romney, then defend him on his liberal record. Don’t drag Reagan into the debate. Reagan remains a conservative icon. Romney is a nobody.
And I know who posted the thread. That makes your case even weaker on substance and merit.
I love you too!
Excellent in every detail!
Thanks!
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.