Skip to comments.Michael Reagan's Statement on the Cunningham Flap
Posted on 02/28/2008 5:52:33 PM PST by libbylu
Would someone please tell Michael Reagan this..... THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HAS LEFT ME, JUST AS THE DEMOCRAT PARTY LEFT RONALD REAGAN!!!!!! Michael can say his father would have supported McCain as much as he wants. Fact is, I believe we have been left by the republicans, and I am a republican no more.
Im not a Methodist either!
I rarely listen to the fellow. I think his meds are off this week.
p.s. You probably should have posted this on the Ohio FR board. Maybe 20% of Ohio FReepers know this guy.
MR drank the koolaid. Most people are obstaining. But whatever. Michael is entitled to his opinion and to diss the rest of us and exaggerate the situation. We now know what he is made of. What I find the hardest to take (speaking of his column on the subject) is his statement about Ronald Reagan seeing Christ in everyone. What? Christ is not in everyone and therefore He cannot be seen in them. What we see in everyone is a corrupt sin nature. I’m sorry but I just think Michael should stick to what he knows and leave theology for someone else before he starts sounding like Shirley McLaine standing at the ocean shouting “I am god.”
Well thanks for sharing!
If McCain was so unhappy he should have politely and privately made sure Cunningham was never again invited to speak at his rallys. But no. McCain must trumpet himself and stomp on the other guy (always a Republican). He WAY overreacted. I can’t help but feel Michael Reagan is just asking to be the new warm-up speaker for McCain rallys. Go for it if that’s his dream job. I just couldn’t disagree with him more on this. Also, I wish he would stop acting like he is his dead father’s spokesperson. Ronald Reagan had other kids and it looks to me like none of them agree on much. Let Ronald Reagan’s own words speak for him. On subjects he didn’t address, leave him out of it. Please.
If I was McCain, I would have done the same thing.
McCain, who already has the nick name McNasty, does not need to spend 1-4 days getting off message trying to defend petty comments by every talk show host in the nation.
Mike Reagan, while a nice guy, is a Republican shill, and always has been. When push comes to shove/holding your nose to spite your face, none are better than Mike Reagan, Hannity and Rush. They are hardly true conservatives!! Cunningham is a conservative, though not as conservative as I’d like him to be. If he had backed McNasty, that in itself indicated he wussed out from pressure from other hosts or from the Party.
Having been outside the GOP now for 12 years, I can honestly say that it’s great being Independent! Nobody tells ME how to vote, or threatens me—except some desperate RINOs here at FR. Freedom IS special. We’d better cherish it, because it ain’t gonna be around much longer.
By the way, a lot of freeper RINOs are warning conservatives that we had “better vote for McCain or else the country will go to the left”, etc. I’m not so certain that would be the case. The House will almsot certainly go back to the GOP/conservatives in November. Even Dems are disappointed in the do nothing Pelosi House. With Obama almost sure to win, the House will almost certainly go GOP. The country is already going right. Everyone wants to be considered “conservative”. Conservative is “kool” now. The issue that is driving the country towards the right is the Invasion by 40 million Mexicans and the carnage associated with/caused by some of those illegals.
So, while The White House may go Democrat, the rest of the country is going in the opposite direction.
How long is he going to be off message trying to defend his own hyper-sensitivity? If he had been private and gracious to Cunningham, this would be over. We are still talking about it because McCain was McCain, nasty to Republicans and a hyper-senstive coddler to liberals.
BTW, in spite of what I’ve said (and stand by) on this thread, I agree that Michael Reagan is a nice guy. He’s just wrong.
Go ahead, refuse to vote for Mcain and prove your point....if you point is to leave our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan dangling in the wind as Obama throws in the towel.
Who cares what Obama’s middle name is. If a president can’t have a debate on the issues, he shouldn’t even run for the office.
I have a guy in my church with the last name of Hitler. So what?
Thank you, but I really don't need your permission.
That doesn't make him a bad person, or even guarantee that he would be a President who would not have America's best interests at heart were he to be elected. But it is simply a fact that people need to think about while we are in the midst of a war on terror against Muslim fanatics. Should we be lead in that war by someone who, if not Muslim, is certainly very favorably disposed to them, far more than even al-Bush, the Saudi hand-holder.
So, stated in that light, the issue is legitimate and worthy of raising. It is as though in the midst of the war against Japan, we had made Daniel Inouye President. Now, he is a fine American, served in Europe with distinction, and although a liberal, is a nice guy. But would he have done what Harry Truman did in fighting that war? Would we want to have to worry about that? Do we want to worry that Obama will be quick on the draw, ruthless and relentless in defending America, against Muslim fanatics, even if we think he probably is not one himself?
I don't. American's might disagree. They should discuss it, rationally and will all the facts, and without being told they are racists for mentioning that this guy running for President is a Hussein. It is a relevant fact.
Conservatives didn't exist during the New Deal. It was created more or less by the intellectuals led by Bill Buckley (RIP) in the 1950s, and became a coherent and consistent set of beliefs, a philosophy of government. They had to fight a battle out on the wilderness of thought, scratching and clawing, gaining converts in small increments. But they had Reagan, and Reagan was the Great Convincer. He brought the party around, the voters, not the elites, and then he stormed into the White House, and then he proved that Conservatism had been right all those years.
What has happened since then? The counter-attack of the elites. They couldn't just dump Reaganism altogether right off the bat, they had to take it in stages. They made damn sure the process was set up such that they could have a great say in the result. Liberal, northern states starting out. Dems voting in GOP primaries. Always being nice to RINOs, even Specter, Chafee and Hagel.
So, Bush I starts right off saying he would give us a "kinder, gentler nation". Why not just turn and spit in Reagan's eye? Then they raised taxes. Perot, a Dem ploy, paid off and we got Clinton. Party elites responded with Bob Dole, who NEVER bought off on Reagan, fought him all the way. Bob Dole personally, by himself, killed the Gingrich revolution, when he caved on the "train wreck". He was a DC product, and it was killing him that the Government was shut down. He cut Newt's balls off, and forced the GOP to cave with that move. Then what happens? He gets rewarded with the nomination! He campaigned like he had made a deal to lose. Maybe he had.
Then we get Bush II, the "compassionate Conservatism" guy. What a joke! As if conservatism doesn't care about people. What he meant by compassion is our tax money going to stupid causes that perpetuate problems, from social welfare programs to foreign aid, to education. He campaigned for every RINO he could find, in each case undercutting the conservative alternative. He brings in guys like Martinez (who he made Senator in Fla. instead of the conservative) and pushes things like amnesty for illegals.
Where I differ with Michael Reagan is that after his father, the party's faithful were conservative and deserved conservative leadership. We have some moderates in the party, sure, and if a good one once in a while rose to the top on the strength of leadership qualities, we could take that. What I cannot countenance is that the "moderate" (read: liberal) wing controls everything in the party, and their motto is "the alternative is worse". We thought it was a conservative party with room for some people who are moderate on some things. Instead, it appears it is a liberal party, accepting the socialist premise of the Democrats, that barely tolerates US.
Well, I say, like Reagan did, that my party has left me. We showed it the way and it showed us the door. To stick around any longer would be to, in the manner of Huckabee, wear out our welcome.
Yeah. That's the ticket. We just get average Americans to realize what Obama's middle name is and we have the election in the bank. /sarc
This is a vanity, not an article posting. Please clean up.
“There is nothing wrong with arguing that Mr. Barack Hussein Obama, or B-Ho for short, is the wrong man to be leading America at this point in our history due to his background. He is the son of a Muslim who attended Muslim religious school from the formative years of 6-12, and was enrolled as a Muslim at the school, although he denies that he was a Muslim. Fine. He also attended Friday prayers with his stepfather, would have studied Arabic and been taught Muslim tenets and Koranic recitations.”
You should write this as a letter to the editor. See if the paper will print it.
We should test how much censoring of his bio will go on.
“Conservatives didn’t exist during the New Deal. “
Not true. Understandable since liberal history books whitewash it, but they were fighting the rising tide of socialism:
In 1937, “US Senator Josiah Bailey of North Carolina was concerned that President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his New Deal programs were leading America and North Carolina down the road to collectivism. Although he did not oppose every attempt at government intervention, Senator Bailey believed that limitations should be placed on government growth.” He is credited with being part of a group that drafted the Conservative Manifesto which offered 10 “practical solutions” for the problems of the times:
1. Immediate revision of taxes on capital gains and undistributed profits in order to free investment funds.
2. Reduced expenditures to achieve a balanced budget, and thus, to still fears deterring business expansion.
3. An end to coercion and violence in relations between capital and labor.
4. Opposition to unnecessary government competition with private enterprise.
5. Recognition that private investment and enterprise require a reasonable profit.
6. Safeguarding the collateral upon which credit rests.
7. Reduction of taxes, or if this proved impossible at the moment, firm assurance of no further increases.
8. Maintenance of state rights, home rule, and local self-government, except where proved definitely inadequate.
9. Economical and non-political relief to unemployed with maximum local responsibility.
10. Reliance upon the American form of government and the American system of enterprise.
“I believe we have been left by the republicans, and I am a republican no more.”
Yea, yea, yea. We’ve heard it already. Let us know what political party you start. There are millions of us who can’t wait to join the Libbylu party.
Sarcasm off. Stop the vanity crap and stop your bellyaching. You sound like a spoiled child that if you can’t have your way you’re going to take your toys and leave. How about acting like a grown-up and recognizing that although you may not like your choices, you do have a choice.
It wasn’t a debate. The guy was warming up the crowd at a political rally. The difference is huge. Lighten up.
Best reply yet—my sentiments exactly.
There may have been individuals who espoused all the elements that came together in Buckley and then Goldwater, but if so, they were so few that they were mere oddities and crackpots in a sea of liberals on the Dem side and country clubbers on the GOP side.
Sadly he is more than just a Cincinnati radio host. He took over Matt Drudge's Sunday night slot many months ago. Now the rest of the US gets the blow hard for at least one night a week. That being said I could care less about Cunningham using Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. whole name.
Last poll I saw regarding the fine members of our military showed McCain getting around 51% support. My younger brother, a member of the military stationed remotely, claims that very few of the people he knows are McCain supporters. When I asked him about that in some detail, he said that they serve this country to ensure that we have the freedom to vote our hearts and minds.
The military is certainly not trying to use the troops to bully a vote for McCain. Question is: why are you?
“Last poll I saw regarding the fine members of our military showed McCain getting around 51% support.”
You left out a few important details about the poll. How many other Republicans candidates were also available to choose from? If you’re suggesting that McCain would only get 51% support from our military in a head-to-head against Hillary or Obama, I would find that hard to believe. Perhaps you could find this poll you say you saw and provide a link for us?
Rather than change the focus, why don't you answer the question that I asked you? Why are you using the troops to bully votes for McCain? I don't like seeing the troops getting used by anybody, you included.
Come to think of it, the poll was between Huckabee and McCain. Since McCain is the presumptive nominee, I found it interesting that he was only pulling 51% support. I don’t remember any further details.
I find it really hard to believe that the military would support the democrats too. Why would they vote for someone who thinks that all they do is kill kids and rape women in a manner reminiscent of “Jengis Khan”?
“Rather than change the focus, why don’t you answer the question that I asked you? “
Well, JustaDumbBlonde, if you check you’ll see that you asked the question of TheErnFormerlyKnownAsBig, not of me.
As for what your brother related to you, that is known as anecdotal evidence. It’s not very persuasive. For example, if I said all of the members of the military that I spoke to are supporting John McCain, would you find that very persuasive?
My error and I apologize.
We know that very few papers would ever print anything that discusses Obama’s background, even if it is true. It is not censorship, they are liberal rags and we are free to start our own papers. That we don’t and therefore are subject to a liberal press is as much a fact of life as the fact that the GOP primary system is set up to nominate liberals. Neither is a conspiracy, they are just the way things evolved over a long period of time, and those in power don’t want it to change.
May I have the honor of presenting you with the Internet Grammar Award for numeric agreement of subject and predicate?
I want to scream every time I see or hear the cliche, “If I were . . .” :)
I honestly don't see how anyone could possibly take Cunningham seriously now. He went from appearin in person at a McCain campaign rally to joining the Vote for Hillary "conservative" faction literally within 24 hours.
Why? McCain didn't change his position on any issue in those 24 hours. He didn't make a racist gaffe in those 24 hours. All that happened was that McCain repudiated Cunningham's comments, and Cuningham got his widdle feewings hurt. He's a petulant child throwing a tantrum.
“My error and I apologize.”
Apology accepted. Once again, I’ve enjoyed our ‘conversation’.
"Politely and privately" wouldn't have cut it in this case. This was not Cunningham on his radio show - he was speaking at an official McCain campaign event, and his words are the words of the campaign until the campaign (or better, the candidate) knocks it down. Responding forcefully and immediately was the best move.
Anyone with an ounce of sense knows that Cunningham’s spiel on Barack Hussein Obama would be directly attributed by much of the media and Obama’s people to John McCain-i.e., as a deliberate and low maneuver by McCain (whether it was or not).
McCain was quite right in immediately taking full responsibility for what happened even though he didn’t have a damn thing to do with it. He immediately cleared the air.
Any military officer is expected to take full responsibility for the unit under his command - and if that unit fouls up because of no fault of the officer, he is still held to account.
McCain, a former officer of distinction, took the high road. And the honorable road. More power to him.
I want to scream every time I see or hear the cliche, If I were . . . :)
You probably need to go study a little more grammar before you scream. "If I were..." is a subjunctive and is correct. "If I was..." is incorrect, although it is becoming accepted due to common misuse.
Cunningham’s words were about a 2 on a meteer that goes to 100. They were nothing. This is all just ridiculous, demanding phony respect is dishonest. Let people say what they think. McCain should address only things that are lies, not things he fears might hurt someone’s feelings. We need truth. TRUTH TRUTH TRUTH! Feelings will be what they will be. Cunningham told no lies. If what he said hurt Obama’s feelings then Obama is way too sensitve for poltiical office. Just like McCain. Scary part with McCain, he seeks revenge. He pushes laws that will shut people up.
McCain, a former officer of distinction, took the high road. And the honorable road. More power to him.”
You think McCain is an honorable man. Interesting. Let’s see. John Kerry testifies in Washington on National television and tells the world that “...These were not isolated incidents. Thousands of American soldiers on a daily basis raped, beheaded, murdered and slaughter innocent men women and children. This was a known by officers at every level of command.”
What does John McCain say about this man, John Kerry, who would tell such blatantly false lies and besmirch the honor and reputation of our honorable fighting men and women in Vietman? Well, he said John Kerry was a Vietman war hero and an honorable man!
What did he say about a real Vietman war hero, John O’Neil, who exposed these outrageous lies and stood up for our Vietnam veterans? Why he said the man is disgusting and dishonorable human being.
What did John McCain say about Hillary Clinton? Oh, he said “She would be a great President.”
John McCain said he would appoint conservative strict-constructionist judges. What did he do as the leader of the Gang of 14? He prevented the appointment of over 200 conservative judges to the federal district and appellate courts. Hmmm...
McCain said passing McCain-Feingold would get the corrupting influence of money and lobbyist out of our electoral process. Today, more money than ever is being spent on elections. John McCain has 28 lobbyists working on his campaign.
I could go on and on about McCain’s hypocrisy but I think you know where I am going. My definition of the truth and being honorable are vastly different than the RINO’s definition.
“We know that very few papers would ever print anything that discusses Obamas background, even if it is true.”
In articles no, but it can leak out. Go ahead and write a letter to editor about Obama and try to get it published. Lets see how it goes.
We need this to get out there.
“Cunninghams words were about a 2 on a meteer that goes to 100. They were nothing. This is all just ridiculous, demanding phony respect is dishonest. Let people say what they think. McCain should address only things that are lies, not things he fears might hurt someones feelings. We need truth. TRUTH TRUTH TRUTH! Feelings will be what they will be. Cunningham told no lies. If what he said hurt Obamas feelings then Obama is way too sensitve for poltiical
office. Just like McCain. Scary part with McCain, he seeks revenge. He pushes laws that will shut people up.”
I’m with you on this. I think McCain was trying to make a point about what his campaign should be about, and he has a right to that, but the public excoriation of a supporter over this was over-the-top. we have a situation where McCain has said worse things to Sen Domenici, Sen Cornyn, Sen Grassley and his own staffers than what Cunningham said about Obama. There were no lies and his middle name is not a smear.
McCain has absorbed the same phony double-standard the media uses.
McCain was my last option for the GOP nomination (I don’t count Ron Paul as he is a flat out nutburger). But, to turn over the Commander in Chief job to Obama or Hillary, straight up marxists, because McCain jabbed my eyes a few times on other issues does me no good.
When I was in the military, serving abroad, I had no time to follow politics. Now I do and I won’t walk off the battlefield, leaving those who protect me and my family to the whims of the likes of Hillary or Obama.
Because Obama (likely nominee) will do everything he can (as the most liberal Senator as presently ranked) to stick a knife in the military’s back.
I’m not saying vote for McCain because the military personell are voting for them. I’m saying vote for him because he doesn’t want to surrender in Iraq just before we win.
That’s what I meant.
Hope that clears it up for you.
Well, that's your decision. Trying to use the "It's for the troops!" refrain to guilt others into voting for your candidate is getting a bit old.
See, it's not a conservative's job to kowtow to whomever the GOP decides to run. If the GOP (and people like yourself) want the conservatives' votes you need to present us with a conservative candidate.
Now that you're saddled with McCain you want to declare the game over and start with the fearmongering.
"Obama will gut the military!"
"Hillary will give us Hillarycare!"
Well, maybe you should have thought of that before you settled on McCain. Maybe more importantly, maybe you should have asked the conservatives whether McCain was an acceptable candidate BEFORE you settled on him. Especially if you expect us to vote for him.
I concede that it's a little late for that now. But that's not my problem. If you want me to vote for a RINO, it's YOUR problem.
No one's saying Cunningham can't say what he thinks.
McCain should address only things that are lies, not things he fears might hurt someones feelings.
So McCain can't set the tone of his own campaign? Cunningham has been saying "Barack Hussein Obama" on every reference on his own radio show -- to a degree that it's annoying, and keeps me from listening to his show in Drudge's old time slot. Had it stayed therethere would have been no story.
But he ran that schtick at a McCain campaign event, and McCain thought it was better to distance himself from it. And then Cunningham pitched a hissy fit.
I am a conservative....McCain wasn’t my choice in our primary/caucus....I’m not asking you to vote for a RINO.....I’m asking you to vote for a person who will do the least damage to the country.....if your choice is between a boat with 100 holes to patch while at sea or 25, I’ll take the 25 holed boat.
Those are you choices.
My choice was to be in the Navy. Algore hadn’t invented the internet yet and keeping up on day to day political stuff was impossible
I won’t abandon the troops to Obama. It’s cowardly to walk off the battlefield and leave behind others to fight for you. It proves nothing.
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.