Why Not Nominate the Next Reagan in 2012?

American Thinker ^ | February 27, 2010 | Bruce Walker

[EveningStar]

If Republicans could, surely they would nominate Ronald Reagan for president in 2012. As it appears increasingly likely that Republicans -- conservative Republicans -- will control Congress after the 2012 elections, the only missing element in the political equation is a strong, conservative president like Ronald Reagan. In the mix of possible candidates for 2012, there are some potentially promising people.

[Chi-townChief]

I’d prefer the next George Washington myself; Reagan would obviously be an improvement but still wouldn’t cut it now.

[CapnJack]

Where is Ted Nugent on this list !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Nugent 2012!!!!

I like Fred. Since I live in NH, I voted for him in the primary. My Sportsmens’ club had his rep for southern NH come and speak to the members and I remember a lot of us saying that “Fred needs to get going if he really wants to be Pres”. Apparently he did not listen to the people who liked him.

[SmokingJoe]

My choice for the nomination is Paul Ryan. He’s superb.

I think Paul Ryan is a very smart, very well informed gentleman, and has some great ideas for dealing with our gargantuan deficits, but how is he going to defend his votes for all these budget busting bailouts? I know he comes from a liberal district, but still.
As for Fred Thompson, he will not be the candidate in 2012. He couldn't even beat McCain, Romney or Huckabee in 2008.

[Vermont Lt]

Reagan was an accomplished performer, uninon president and two term governor before he ran for President. Sarah may share his values, but she ain’t no Reagan. Not even close.

[powderfan]

1. Not a newbie, been on here since 2005. Couldn’t remember my password when my computer crashed.
2. Reagan Man, I was one of the ones who voted in that poll, and guess who I voted for... Thompson
3. I didn’t call Thompson a RINO. My point was that he has taken positions to the left of all of those so-called “RINOs” on that list.
4. Brices Crossroads, the only person I remember Rush endorsing was Romney...as well as Hannity, Coulter, el al.

Some of his votes:
-Voted NO on banning affirmative action hiring with federal funds in 1995
-Voted YES on banning “soft money” contributions and restricting issue ads. (Mar 2002)
-Voted YES on banning campaign donations from unions & corporations. (Apr 2001)
-Voted YES on funding for National Endowment for the Arts. (Aug 1999)
-Voted YES on favoring 1997 McCain-Feingold overhaul of campaign finance. (Oct 1997)
-Voted YES on funding GOP version of Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Apr 2001)

My point is that if you consider Jindal, Romney, etc to be RINOs then you have to consider Thompson a RINO. Just because he is an actor doesn’t make him Reagan

[Newfy]

I didn’t know he voted for the bailouts. That’s a surprise because on his Roadmap it’s obvious he knows what he’s talking about when it comes to the economy and the deficits. Are you sure he voted for those bailouts? Do you hve proof? Not trying to be contentious but would like to know.

[Newfy]

Also he cleaned Obama’s clock at obama’s healthcare summit. Bet there won’t be any more televised summits.

[SmokingJoe]

“:Are you sure he voted for those bailouts? Do you hve proof? Not trying to be contentious but would like to know.”

That's ok.

“Paul Ryan explains his votes for TARP, bailouts and tax on AIG bonuses

A recent column in which blogger Matt Lewis questioned the conservative credentials of Rep. Paul Ryan, Wisconsin Republican, got a lot of attention on our Web site. A number of Daily Caller readers have commented about Ryan, saying he has cast votes they disagree with, particularly in favor of the $700 billion TARP bailout for Wall Street, the auto bailouts and the taxes on AIG bonuses.

Here’s how Lewis put it:

Though he talks like Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman, some of Ryan’s most high-profile votes seem closer to Keynes than to Adam Smith. For example, in the span of about a year, Ryan committed fiscal conservative apostasy on three high-profile votes: The Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP (whereby the government purchased assets and equity from financial institutions), the auto-bailout (which essentially implied he agrees car companies — especially the ones with an auto plant in his district—are too big to fail), and for a confiscatory tax on CEO bonuses (which essentially says the government has the right to take away private property — if it doesn’t like you).

While Ryan’s overall voting record is very conservative, the problem with casting these high-profile votes is that they demonstrate he is willing to fundamentally reject conservatism when the heat is on.

Because it is impossible to believe the highly intelligent and well read Rep. Ryan was unfamiliar with conservative economic principles, one must conclude he either 1). Doesn’t really believe in free market economics, or 2). Was willing to cast bad votes for purely political purposes."
http://dailycaller.com/2010/02/14/paul-ryan-explains-his-votes-for-tarp-auto-bailouts-and-tax-on-aig-bonuses/

These votes are problematic, to put it midly.

[Brices Crossroads]

“I didn’t call Thompson a RINO. My point was that he has taken positions to the left of all of those so-called “RINOs” on that list.”

Like I said, everyone can cherry pick a vote that he disagrees with. Fred Thompson is a constitutionalist. His wrongheaded votes on CFR, which he acknowledged, were not motivated by hostility to the First Amendment but by a genuine nausea about the corruption in Congress. Like I said, this site is anti-RINO central and had Fred been a RINO he would not have drawn the level of support he did nor would JR have supported him.

“Brices Crossroads, the only person I remember Rush endorsing was Romney...as well as Hannity, Coulter, el al.”

Rush endorsed Romney, as did Mark Levin, AFTER Thompson dropped out in a last ditch effort to stop McCain. After one of the debates, Rush specifically said that Thompson was the clearest articulator of Reaganite,constitutionalist principles in the field, and he played several clips of Fred to show it. If you would like to listen to how Rush appraised the other candidates as “moderates” and Fred Thompson as the only one of the four top tier candidates(Huckabee, Romney and McCain being the others) as a conservative.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ah5WEMPKam0

Sorry, powderfan, my own investigation and observation of FT tells me he is no RINO. But if I was clueless or had some doubt, I would take the work of Jim Robinson and Rush Limbaugh over yours. Without a second thought.

[powderfan]

Again I didn’t call Thompson a RINO. I like Thopmson. It does sound like you’re cherry-picking on Jindal, Cantor, etc

[Brices Crossroads]

“It does sound like you’re cherry-picking on Jindal, Cantor,”

No. I saw Cantor and Jindal on the “listening tour” with Mitt, Jeb Bush, McCain back in May when they were all of the view that we need to get along with, and even emulate Obama to be relevant; that we needed to be “relevant” and stop being nostalgic for Reagan.

Cantor votes conservative, but seems willing to jettison principle to be “relevant”. Ditto Jindal. Jindal, for the reasons I outlined in my post to you, does not seem to have the principles of a conservative, although he may take certain conservative positions. Nothing you posted about Thompson convinces me that you, rather than Jim Robinson and Rush, are right.

You seem to be defining the term RINO down so that no one is a RINO. Wrong. RINOs are, first and foremost, ESTABLISHMENT Republicans. If you care to research Fred Thompson’s voting record, you will also see that he is the lone vote on many votes which violate his federalist principles. He was not an establishment guy. Neither was Reagan. The Bushes, Romneys, Cantors and Jindals (all of whom came from the Establishment or, in the case of Jindal and Cantor, were promoted by it) are Establishment to the core. Republican first, conservative second.

In essence you are confusing individual issues for principles. Particular issues do not necessarily make a person a RINO. The wrong principles do. Even well formed conservative constitutionalist principles do not ALWAYS yield the correct issue result. Listen to Rush’s critique of Charlie Rose for making the same mistake:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFQcehzn9Eo

The two anti-RINOs, or anti-Establishmentarians, in my lifetime have been Ronald Reagan and Sarah Palin. Both found themselves in opposition to the establishment in their respective states from the “get-go”. Both faced fierce opposition from Establishment foes on the National stage. I would say this. Thompson is far less “Establishment” than all of his 2008 opponents, and as far as issues go, I think he is in sync with Reagan and Palin. I do think Palin and Reagan share the common experience, which Fred did not, of having to battle the Establishment throughout their careers. Fred did benefit from his association with Establishment figures such as Howard Baker.

[Bobbisox]

I concur. We had our opportunity for a magnificent President that would have been a true contrast to the current one. Also, McCain was such a mistake. We all knew it then and we definitely know it now.

If Senator Thompson becomes a candidate, I will again back him with all my heart and pocketbook!!!

The question is, how do we survive as a country until 2012. We are in deep doodoo ladies and gentlemen. You know it and I know it. I have my doubts that it can be stopped. I pray for my country daily.

[EnigmaticAnomaly]

"I think Duncan Hunter stands head-and-shoulders above the rest. It’s a shame that conservatives’ eyes were blinded to him in the last presidential election."

As I posted in post #41, I wholeheartedly concur. It seems only you, me, and pissant seem to recognize this fact--at least on THIS thread.

[unseen1]

With deepest respect for Sarah, none of these candidates is another Reagan. She is the only candidate that has governed like Reagan. she is the only national candidate that tells you how it is like Reagan, She is the only candidate that the press attacks with the same passion as they did Reagan, she is the only candidate that can connect to the avg citizen like Reagan, she is the only candidate that has stated publicly that she is a disciple of Reaganism. No, she is not another Reagan but she is the closest we have and the closest we are likely to see on the national stage for a very very long time. If you like her message, her policies which are 100% Reagan then forget about the attacks and support this woman. she is the only one fighting for OUR beliefs on the national stage. There are none close to what Palin is doing to advance Reaganism.

[Still Thinking]

Shoot, Reagan is a better president dead than Obama is alive.

[ansel12]

I thought Scott Brown was the big push?

Brown/Snowe /s

That is too right wing, let's go for Romney/Scozzafava. /s

[EveningStar]

I don’t see Palin running either.

[FreeReign]

Reagan was an accomplished performer, uninon president and two term governor before he ran for President.

Reagan of course was not a two term governor beore he ran for president.

[Al B.]

Reagan of course was not a two term governor beore he ran for president.

He was, of course, a half-term governor before he ran for president. LOL

[neverdem]

I joined the NYGOP so I could vote for Fred in the primary. I don’t think he has the fire in the belly.