Posted on 03/06/2012 9:58:54 AM PST by Hojczyk
Not since Herbert Hoover has a party out of power had such an opportunity to run against everything that troubles the American family—prices, interest rates, unemployment, taxes, or the fear for the future of their old age or the future of their children—than is now presented to the Republican Party.
That's the conventional wisdom in a nutshell, isn't it?
It will come as no surprise that these words appeared in a Feb. 29 column in the New York Times. They are reproduced here exactly as written, save for one small adjustment.
The president whose failings they describe is Jimmy Carter, not Barack Obama. The lines were written in 1980, not 2012. The author was the then-dean of conventional wisdom, James "Scotty" Reston. The headline was "Jimmy Carter's Luck," a reference to Reagan's victory in the New Hampshire primary three days earlier.
It appears the conventional wisdom hasn't changed much. Today's narrative holds that however weak President Obama's hand, Republicans find themselves in no position to capitalize on it. A glance back to where we were at this exact point in the 1980 primaries suggests otherwise.
Yes, the parallels to 1980 take you only so far, and Mitt Romney is no Ronald Reagan. Still, at this same point in his campaign for the GOP nomination, neither was Reagan. The President Reagan we rightly admire for bringing down the Berlin Wall, reviving the U.S. economy, and attracting into the GOP millions of disaffected Democrats was still to come.
And he got there by transcending the conventional wisdom rather than allowing himself or his message to be limited by it.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Uh, yeah. Romney is more like George H Bush than Reagan.
Reagan was NOT the old guard candidate - that was George HW Bush. Reagan rode a populist wave of people fed up with that imbecile Carter. The big difference between then and now is that 1) we don't have anybody running equal to half a Reagan, 2) We have had more than 30 years for liberal idiots to enlarge the entitlement class. The class of people that elected Reagan still exist, it's just now they have shrunk as a percentage of the total population.
Bottom Line: might as well start figuring out how we will deal with four more years of the current jackass.
bfl
Go go Google News Archives and start pulling up the old newspapers from 1976-80. They started writing his political epitaph early in the race against Ford and kept it up almost to Election Day 1980.
Mitt Romney is more like Joe Suzuki than Ronald Reagan.
Make that Joe Isuzu.
Since 1900, only one Republican became president by defeating an incumbent. That was Ronald Reagan. He had these four traits that might have helped him:
1. He was conservative.
2. He was a governor.
3. He ran for president, in a previous election.
4. He was from the West.
Only two current candidates, Romney and Paul, have at least two of those four traits.
We have a Marxist President with a radical agenda foreign to our heritage with his finger on the nuclear trigger. His paternity and citizenship are suspect. He takes great pains to hide his background from us. He was educated by Muslims, Communists, and at Harvard. He emerged into the public eye from the cesspool of Chicago politics. As a “community organizer”, he got poor folks on the dole and squandered taxpayer money in a failed attempt to subvert public schools to an ideological agenda. He attended a Chicago Church whose hate-America Pastor is a foul-mouthed servant of Satan. He is close friends with known terrorists. He admires and bows before oil potentates and tin-pot dictators. (We have pictures.) He treats America’s traditional allies with contempt. He hates Jews, Israel, America, and Whitey. He lies so easily and so often it is troubling. Based on his past & current associations, Barack Obama would never even qualify for a DOD Security Clearance; now he is Commander in Chief and fecklessly taking steps to disarm us in the sight of our enemies. Does that make you feel safe at night? Fellow Patriots, Barack Obama is a danger to your Life, Liberty, and Property and a disgrace to American ideals! Barack Obama deserves only our scorn and contempt, not our vote.
I’m absolutely convinced that Newt Gingrich is the junkyard dog we need to rip Obama a new one and send him running back to his Chicago slime pit with his tail between his legs. Newt has plenty of DC experience as Speaker, executive ability from his many enterprises, and a silver tongue that’s razor sharp! He’s fast on his feet, delivers it straight up with no hemming and hawing, and is often witty. His work with American Solutions was very impressive and as we’ve seen recently, Newt is able to put into words what the vast majority of Americans really believe. His fevered brain also has plenty of ideas for making government work better for taxpayers. Is Newt pure as new driven snow? No - none of the presidential candidates are in line for sainthood. Whatever Newt’s “baggage”, it pales next to Obama’s habitual lying and outright corruption - and unlike Obama, Newt is 100% American! Newt is like Larry the Cable Guy: send him to DC and he’ll “Get ‘er done” for all of us. Newt has “Been there, done that! Junkyard dogs are not show dogs, but they’ll save your bacon!
I am damn mad at what Obama and his bootlickers have stolen from us - you should be too - and I want someone to represent me! Newt Gingrich is that man! Sic ‘im, Newt!
Yes, and Carter was a sure winner, snicker, snicker. Finding a worse president than Carter wasn’t easy, but the Democrats have done it. Obama’s incompetence is only excelled by his radical anti Americanism. It won’t take a Reagan to beat him. It will take an American who can make people believe in America again.
Anyone, ANYONE, comparing Mitt to Reagan needs their heads examined.
There are “some” similarities between now and 1980: a weak, catastrophic incumbent, and a likely general election candidate from the GOP seen by the media as weak.
In Reagan’s case, however, they thought that it was b/c of his ideology. They thought they could Goldwater him. What they didn’t anticipate was Reagan Democrats. These are the “independent voters” that the media doesn’t know exist. Then and now.
In Romney’s case, they think that a fractured GOP won’t turn out, they think that the economy is going to improve, and they think that contraception will be a major issue. They think that the independent voters that they do recognize (socially liberal, fiscally conservative) will flee the GOP and go back to obama.
There are plenty of differences as well. It is NOT clear yet that Romney CAN bring in the independent voters that the media identifies (socially liberal, fiscally conservative). Most likely, if THEY believe that the economy is getting better then Romney will not win these voters and obama will win. But I think many of these independent voters are never going back to obama.
As weak as Romney is, I think he has a chance in the general....maybe a slim one, but still he has a chance. One thing Romney has done is proven that he actually wants to be President. He will say anything to become PResident. Sadly, in the general, that will serve him well. IF he can bring conservatives home (not talking freepers here...not THOSE conservatives...most here think no diff b/w Romney and obama), and if he can bring in the beloved independent voters....and IF he could somehow put on someone like Santorum who will help with Reagan Democrats, then....he has a chance. Which will hasten the decay of the country a few years. Romney won’t save the country....but if he ousts obama, that will forestall the complete collapse a few years. IF he repeals obamacare under pressure from GOP Congress, then those years are even more (of course, most likely, he will not repeal....).
Back to history. Reagan trailed Carter in March 1980, it is true. But March was his low point. Obviously by the time the debates were over, Reagan was in the driver’s seat and he ended up trashing Carter. It was beautiful.
Sigh. Damn I miss Ronald Reagan.
1. He was conservative.
2. He was a governor.
3. He ran for president, in a previous election.
4. He was from the West.”
Also, Reagan could speak convincingly and without condescension.
None of the candidates have that.
Alas.
Damn I miss Ronald Reagan.
They hated Reagan because he wasn’t one of them. And they actively worked against him. Oh, the tales of woe they spread...
But Reagan had the fabulous gift of plain spokenness, and a host of powerful ideas that inspired the American People. These folks had been suffering under the imbecile Carter, who had not a single clue as to how to handle things, and a cabal of greedy underlings who worked tirelessly to loot American business. The American People knew what was going on, and resented it, but up to that point were only given bad choices: vote for the lesser of two evils. Reagan was someone they could vote *for* not just someone to vote with reluctance.
Newt can be that candidate as well, somebody who is plain spoken and has a firm grip on the problems and a strong view of solutions. In short, somebody to vote for. Conversely, his opponent would offer nothing to vote for, only reasons to vote against his opposition. Nothing Il Douche has done merit congratulation, only scorn. This election could well be a landslide unlike anything we have seen, but only if we are able to run a candidate who has the ability to offer solutions and a positive campaign of American Renewal.
Newt is that candidate.
The implication is that Romney will become Conservative and make the RIGHT choices in his governance. Governor Reagan had Conservative credentials with a few decisons as Governor that Conservatives didn’t agree with but he went back before the Goldwater campaign in support of Conservatives and certainly his support for Senator Barry Goldwater for President speech he gave in support of Senator Goldwater defined Conservatism and inspired many who became lifetime Conservatives. I didn’t personally know President Ronald Reagan and don’t personally know Governor Mitt Romney, but Mitt Romney is no Ronald Reagan.
I believe Reagan did not take the lead over Carter in the polls until a couple of weeks before the election.
‘The President Reagan we rightly admire for bringing down the Berlin Wall ... was still to come.”
Ronald Reagan was talking about tearing down the Berlin Wall back in 1963. It is certainly not true that he governed very differently than one might have predicted from reading what he wrote and listening to what he said during the 30 years prior to becoming President. Reagan was focused on two goals: (1) defeating the Soviet Union and (2) reviving the U.S. economy. I have to conclude that he was rather successful at achieving both.
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.