Skip to comments.Jeffery Lord: Newt Battles Mush From the Wimps
Posted on 01/31/2012 4:20:35 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
.....As it happens, Ronald Reagan himself -- but of course -- long ago addressed just this issue. On December 16, 1976, barely over a month after Gerald Ford rang up yet another loss by a moderate Republican presidential candidate, Reagan -- not happy -- was interviewed by the New York Times.
"We are simply saying, 'What does our party stand for?' If the great majority agrees with the philosophy, and some say it's a philosophy they can't go along with, that's a decision for every individual to make. A political party is not a fraternal order. A party is something where people are bound by a shared philosophy."
Reagan's message was plain. It was the same as it was when he said this at the Conservative Political Action Conference in 1975: "And if there are those who cannot subscribe to these principles, then let them go their way."
So what do we have here?
The very same problem Thomas E. Dewey was discussing 63 years ago and that Gerald Ford was talking about 32 years ago. The difference is that neither man, running on an Establishment GOP platform, ever won the presidency.
Ronald Reagan, running flat out as a conservative, won it twice. In two landslides that changed America and changed world history.
The attacks on Newt Gingrich by the Establishment Romneyites are not about Newt Gingrich at all. They are attacks on conservatives. By the Republican Party Establishment.
Or, as the saying might go after all these years: still more mush from the wimps.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
It’s long FReepers but probably one of the best things you’ll read this election (and very important and good for our conservative souls to indulge in).
It would be nice to hear Rush (all conservative talk radio hosts) discuss Lord’s column on his show.
Thanks for posting this, CW. The anxiety level in our home is high, we need some kind of balm. This is just what the doctor ordered.
One other thing Reagan has been out of office for 24 years
Voters in their 20s to early 40s( those in their 40s may have been alive have no real idea of what he was about because who in their teens cares about politics)
“One other thing Reagan has been out of office for 24 years
Voters in their 20s to early 40s( those in their 40s may have been alive have no real idea of what he was about because who in their teens cares about politics”
I was 14 when Reagan was first elected. I knew what he stood for then, and still do as of today.
So if you know some, send them the link to Lord’s article so they can learn.
EDUCATE someone today.
Maybe Rush can channel Reagan today.
Well you certainly were an exceptional 14 year old
Most I knew were worrying about girls and sports
I want to share this comment from American Spectator in the Comment Section from this article:
[quote from] youfamissim| 1.31.12 @ 9:49AM
“Thank You, Jeff - again. 50% of voters do not vote - for a reason. They claim there is nothing to vote for; the two party’s are indistinguishable. 50% of voters is a lot of votes... Reagan did not win with Reagan Democrats. He did get some, but the voters labeled as Democrats were part of the 50% who registered as Democrats - for whatever reason. These are Nixon’s Silent Majority. They only vote when a candidate speaks up for them = Conservatism. Do not forget - Romney chose to run in Mass. He could afford to go anywhere. Mass. was the Right Fit for his views. Mitt ran three times as a Liberal. He tried to Out-Liberal - Ted Kennedy !!! Mitt promoted every liberal cause and policy with compelling remarks. Mitt is NOT a Moderate - which is why he lost in Mass. Few Republicans supported him. Why should they? Liberals would vote for Kennedy, who had more influence and brought them oodles of gov’t gifts. Now Mitt is trying to portray himself as a Conservative - he can’t. His record won’t allow it. Mitt’s liberal bias and past are why Conservatives do not trust him and explains why he can’t attract a majority.
The establishment must attack Newt. They can’t pump up Mitt’s Conservative credentials and Out-Conservative Gingrich. Lord’s comments that establishmentarians think Conservatives “Rubes” and easily deceived is spot on. I really believe finishing a strong and respectable 2nd is their goal. After nearly a century of in the minority, the establishment’s logistics favor that position. Once they assumed the majority, and lost Gingrich’s direction, they morphed into Democrat-Lite. When the Conservative wing of the Republican party wanted to oust them, a Democrat was the only option. The 2006 election was more one of removing RINOs than a Democrat confidence vote. RECALL - Rahm Emanuel demanded no abortion or gun control issues. Democrats needed to appear - Conservative. The establishment try to model their candidates after Democrats - thinking what they promote is the key to victory - Wrong! The 50% who do not, refuse to support either party when there is no difference in their messages. Keeping that 50% at home come election time must be a factor - since that is exactly what the establishment does. This also explains why Conservatism wins when it is promoted. The media who complain Gingrich cannot win, fail to consider what will happen when Mitt and Obama stand face to face - this is when Obama thanks Mitt for health care and supporting liberal causes while governor. Obama will have a trunk filled with examples to convincingly argue their is no difference between them. Will the 50% vote for Mitt? This is what will turn the election.
I want everyone who reads this to remember those supporting Romney - Ann Coulter et al... They DO Not Share your Views !!! They are merchants who know how to create a product for a specific audience - write or champion Conservative material. These are they who act to secure their party invites, etc.... and turn against their target audience.. They have no problem returning the nation to Obama. Afterall - that provides them substance for their next publication.” [end quote]
Thanks Cincinatus’ Wife.