Posted on 02/15/2008 7:44:27 AM PST by old school
I agree. Unfortunately, while we are still benefiting from the Reagan years we are still paying for the Carter years (see Middle East). We are not still paying for the Ford years. In addition, the party apparatus gave us Ford when true conservatives knew we could have had Reagan and he was waiting in the wings. Who is waiting in the wings today? After 4 disastrous years of UN mandated taxes, government confiscation of firearms, mandatory pro-gay laws, socialized medicine, and appeasement of terrorists and despots, who is on the horizon to lead the next version of a Reagan revolution? Mitt "talk conservative when necessary and govern liberal" Romney? Mike "pro-life socialist" Huckabee? Ron "off the deep-end" Paul?
No thanks. I lived through Ford and Carter and I'll take Ford any day of the week. Hillary or Obama have all the makings of being even worse than Bill or even Jimmy. I hear you and the others and share in a disdain of McCain and hope for a brighter future from the right. However, I cannot agree with sitting back and letting President Hillary or President Barrack be elected while I did nothing.
I wish people would leave Reagan out of it, he passed now, we need to look to the future, I’m sick of hear politicians names, let’s get moving with real leadership.
Yea we know, it was mentioned above.
Pretty cool, now more people will see it.
The mods do a fine job.
Fear of another Carter is no reason to vote for an idiot like McCain.
I want to vote for something not against someone.
I would rather have a democrat to blame it all on instead of Republicans taking the fall.
SCREW McCain, Socialist that he is.
McCain needs to move to the right in order to get my support.
I had to get a 17.5% mortgage, and could not sell the previous house for over 18months. Rented it for a year, but lost about $10,000 on the deal due to damage from the rental.
Yes, that wonderful Carter economy really hurt.
I agree with you both.
” When Reagan coined his 11th commandment, the GOP supported conservatism. “
-—<>-—<>-—<>-—<>-—<>-—
HuH??? you have to be kidding!
A reminder: there were two major factions in the GOP then - the “Rockefeller Republicans” and the for lack of a better term, the “Buckley Republicans”. They were often at loggerheads about issues, and for control of the party.
It would be well to recall the facts, rather than the romance.
This Media “push” by Bush and all the RINOs and other phony conservatives to “prop up” McAmnesty is a flagrant effort to bamboozle and pressure real conservatives into voting for the jerk. While some like Michael Reagan have fallen for this ploy, the fact remains that hundreds of thousands and perhaps millions of conservatives WILL NOT. many have already decided to vote third party or not vote for president in November.
Obama is becoming such a force, particularly with so-called “Independents” that McLame is really going to have a tough time being as he’s so UNpopular with his own party. Had it been Hillary (whose campaign is imploding), McCain would most likely have won.
And another critical factor that the the RINOs in the GOP are having to face is “the fresh face” factor. Obama is HUGELY popular because of the “change” issue alone. McCain, like the Clintons, has been around so long that he hardly represents “change”, not to mention his personality problems.
I’m seeing a landslide victory for Obama in November. The GOP will whine and blame conservatives like me for not backing McQueeg, but it won’t stick. McNasty is solely responsible for his own behavior, his bills and his votes.
Let the chops fall where they may.
Reagan backed Ford and asked his supporters to do so.
Earlier, Goldwater backed Nixon before and after his own run. (To his credit, Nixon had supported Barry, unlike Rocky, Scranton, and Daddy Romney.)
Bob Taft asked conservatives to support Eisenhower.
What did that get us? Liberal Supreme Court justices, liberal policies, higher spending, more regulation, and so forth. In other words, these Presidents set back conservatism. They did not advance our cause.
There comes a time to say no. No, I will not do this again. No, I will not allow a bunch of liberals to set our principles back any further. No more.
Further, the disaster that was Jimmy Carter helped pave the way for Reagan’s massive victory in 1980.
I mean, “chips”...
This is what I keep coming back to. The risks of even a single term of Hillobama are just too great.
People need to get out of this Carter-gave-us-Reagan nonsequitur. Even if it were true, it is a falsely-applied analogy to today's dynamic. Things aren't the same as they were in 1980. The events of 9/11 changed the paradigm. Back in 1980 we had the Islamocrazies holding our people hostage in Tehran. Now we have them killing us by the thousands on our own soil. We can't afford the "luxury" of waiting out four or eight years of Hillobama in the vain hope that the electorate will turn against them and/or some now-unknown conservative Savior will arise to lead us out of the wilderness. We may not have a country by then in which to return to power.
"Hi, I'm John McCain. I'm not a Republican, but I play one on TV."
"I learned what party loyalty means. It means the conservatives have to support the liberals, but never the other way around." -- Sen. Richard Schweiker, on the way home from the 1976 convention in Kansas City.
Divorcing conservatism from the Republican party is the best thing that could happen to the movement. Lots of Democrats can’t stand a pro-sodomite, pro-death, pro-regulation leadership. They just want to make sure they are voting for substance and not show. That’s why there was such a thing as “Reagan Democrats.”
Ronald Regan is laughing at this thread. John McCain doesn’t have a snowballs chance in Hell of getting elected. You can now say good bye to your illusion of freedom, and say hello to tyrannical social-facism...American Style of course.
Ronald Reagan Would Back John McCain
Doesn't really convey the same message as
"Assuming that John McCain will be the Republican nominee, you can bet my father would be itching to get out on the campaign trail working to elect him even if he disagreed with him on a number of issues."
Maybe Ronald Reagan Would Back the Republican Nominee would be more like it.
The Gipper backed Ford, who was even worse than McCain.
&&
Could you please give some evidence to support that statement?
McCain would let the deaths of nearly 300 US Armed Forces personnel in one attack go unanswered too?
Probably. That's not a certainty.
And Republican Presidents (McCain-type Republicans) gave us John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Harry Blackmun, Earl Warren, william Brennan, and otehr anti-Constitution disasters. We should vote for more of that?
McCain has said he won't appoint a justice like Alito (which is the kind we want), and, frankly, even Reagan wouldn't fight for Bork, so you know that McCain won't fight for a strict consturctionist -- whom Harry Reid won't allow to be confirmed anyway. (Another reason why, whichever of tehse turkeys wins, we need to change Congress.)
The Supreme Court is not an argument that works in McCain's (or the GOP's) favor, as far as I'm concerned.
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.