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.
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.