Skip to comments.WWRD: What would Reagan do after Obama's re-election?
Posted on 11/10/2012 9:37:59 PM PST by oneprolifewoman
...Ronald Reagan was a lifelong optimist and an example of remarkable resilience especially in bad times. After Barry Goldwater went down to the greatest presidential defeat in American history to that point in 1964, Reagan, whose nationally televised speech was the one shining success in that campaign, was neither shaken no disheartened. Within two years he had won the governorship of California and the rest is history. Reagan therefore would not have lost heart and despaired of conservative and patriotic principles, nor of America.He would have taken a good nights sleep and got up in the morning eager to find new directions and new opportunities for the way ahead. Second, the conservative movement that Ronald Reagan created was generous and inclusive. Reagan welcomed brilliant African-American and Jewish intellectuals alike on to his team. President George W. Bush understood this generous, inclusive essential component of conservatism. I have been critical of Bush for many important things -- unnecessary wars, out of control spending, playing ultimately catastrophic games with keeping interest rates artificially low. But Bush 43, among other things, was highly successful in reaching out to Hispanic Americans. He knew and thought better of grassroots conservatives than assuming that they would never accept Hispanic, black or Jewish Americans in major positions. Romney lost a major opportunity when he refused to seriously consider Susana Martinez of New Mexico or Marco Rubio of Florida as his vice presidential running mate. Martinez in particular gave a superb speech at the Republican National Convention in Tampa and could have helped Romney enormously with women and Hispanics two huge constituencies that he effectively chose to write off. George W. Bush did not make that mistake. Neither did Ronald Reagan.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Massive vote fraud stole it!
excuse me for being pessimistic
it will be years before the conservatives recover.
but hey! what do I know?
I am batting 3 for 7 in presidential elections
88, 92, 96, 2000, 04, 08 and 12
So the author argues, with help of his ouji board, that Reagan would have reached out to all those layabouts and they would have all magically saw the error of their ways. Because we all remember how guys like Mitch Snyder loved the old Gipper. I remember no black leaders accusing old Ronny of masterminding the crack epidemic. The 80’s was all about bipartisanship in DC. Tax cuts had nothing to do with Democrats afraid of losing their seats if they didn’t go along, no it was out of the goodness of their hearts. It was all sweetness and unicorns. The spirit did not reach out to the left then, and it will not reach them now. The difference was there were a lot less of them back then.
Reagan would get rid of the Karl Rove Wing of the party.
I must be close to my age, I’m 46. I could have voted in 1984 but registered too late. B-( Before people pile on, I blame myself.
(I am insane too) early voting is the parlor trick
I don’t think he’d give up with such blatant fraud with the voting and I don’t think he’d virtually go into hiding like Romney is doing.
first federal election was 86 missed that one because of a registration snafu (I moved)
With thinking like that you should change your handle to Fredo.
Reagan would not recognize this America.
That was 30+ years ago.
This country has got to go over the fiscal cliff and into a depression not just a recession. Unemployment has to increase substantially. Then in 2016, the Democrats can only blame Obama and they will lose throughout the country from city to federal government. This country needs to get worse than Greece.
What you’re talking about will quickly spread to a global depression that will make the Great Depression look like a minor hiccup.
Historically, such economic downturns see a rise in radical leftist ideologies and movements.
You’re right. The 60’s and 70’s were worse. You can even argue that 0bama is to the right of Richard - “’We’re all keynsians now’, EPA, Wage and price controls, Detente- loving - Nixon. It’s not over by a longshot.
I really did not need to read that cheerful news.
It is probably correct, but I didn’t need the reminder.
“You could not be more wrong.
Reagan resisted and fought against moves for silly 3rd Parties his entire life.”
Yes, but I believe this time is different. Much different. When RR switched from Dem to Rep he stated that ‘the democrats left me, I didn’t leave them’, or something similar to that.
Likewise would it be in this situaion, I believe.
I just don’t see the GOP having what it takes to return us to our rightful place in this world.
Obama is NOT to the right of Nixon. That is ridiculous. Gay marriage, amnesty, free birth control, Obama -care
Reagan 30+ years ago had a mostly white mostly America who had generations born here before them that he had to win a majority of. That is not this country anymore.
This country has huge % of foreigners who are non-white who relate to O and came from other countries to join the white libs, and they have no idea what freedom or capitalism means.
If the GOP has any ideas they have yet to show evidence of that.
Oh, that hurts! You really know how to disrespect a wiseguy, gusty!
Seriously, I know what the conventional wisdom is about a third party. We're at or near the end of the line now, essentially starring into the economic and cultural abyss.
The GOP is not emotionally equipped to do what it takes to turn this thing around as quickly as it needs to be. Either they're afraid to ‘ruffle the feathers’ of the opposition, or are basically okay with where were headed.
This is just the way I see it. Many argue it's already too late and a collapse is coming in any event, so all this may well be moot.
Scott Walker, He is the only one I see with any promise.
As long as the R party keeps offering up losers like Mitt and deluding itself that it is winning we will continue to slide off the edge.
What would Reagan have done when he realized he couldn’t be elected to any state wide office in California?
We will never know . . .
The road to recovery will not be painless or peaceful.
There is no way to reason with Obamabots.
Rebuilding cannot begin until the collapse is complete and there is no more wealth for the moochers to mooch.
When the declining fderal revenue and the rising interest costs intersect we will be on the threshold of a new era for the moochers and grifters.
I don`t know for sure what Reagan would do, but it`d be entirely understandable if, in today`s rapidly declining Amerika, he`d go into a totally different line of business that`s unconnected to politics.
” Mr. Reagan would recognize the futility of trying to put the pantywaist GOP on a proper heading and jump ship to the Constitution Party. Thirty million would immediately follow, with the rest trickling in over a four year period. The result: Morning once again in America. “
and after 4 years without Reagan, it would become virtually indistinguishable from today’s GOP
“Then in 2016, the Democrats can only blame Obama and they will lose throughout the country from city to federal government. This country needs to get worse than Greece.”
LOL they will always find someone else to blame. Always.
They’ll just blame greedy evil companies for firing people and the evil greedy oil companies for raising prices.
Obama was just as wrong the day after the election as he was the day before or before the one in 2008. Reagan would have done what we all should do, use every opportunity to point out the disaster Obama is in the process of creating and never, ever let him get away with it or blame the wrong people.
Regan couldn’t win California now.
And Romney Was a better Debater than Reagan> I seen both of them. Takers have won, the cows are out of the barn and there is no getting it back.
I’m not much better, 8-5 going bacteria to Nixon.
We’ll never know because Reagan is dead.
It is one of history’s greatest tragedies that Reagan’s Republicans did not control Congress. His GRAND COMPROMISE with Tip O’Neill, that every RAT in Washington lauds as a model for bipartisanship, has contributed to our current financial crisis.
O’Neill agreed to lower the tax rates in exchange for Reagan’s agreeing to automatic inflation escalators on entitlements. Reagan wanted tax cuts and increases in military spending. Military spending actually subsided as a portion of the budget about 1984 as entitlement spending INCREASED. There was no way to get the spedning back under control again. This continued through Bush. Clinton could then raise taxes and claim the stimulative power of removing wealth from the private sector.
THOSE INCREASES IN ENTITLEMENTS ARE NOW BAKED IN AND ANY ATTEMPT TO REIN IN THE GROWTH OF EXPENDITURES IS CALLED A CUT!! The RATS demonize Republicans if they even threaten to reduce the RATE OF GROWTH in spending.
In 1986, O’Neill, with the elimination of many loopholes, raised the effective tax rates (while giving the appearance of lowering the rates!!) even HIGHER than they were in the early 80s with Bill Bradley’s TAX SIMPLIFICATION ACT. Reagan surely understood this and figured it was the best he could do.
Now, Reagan did win the COLD WAR, put the the economy in overdrive, strengthened the military and intelligence forces, while revenues to the treasury DOUBLED. The Reagan Economic Boom and COLD WAR premium provided the charlatan Clinton’s his supposed budget surplus.
However, we now have to deal with the exploding entitlement issue that has proven more intractable than the OLD SOVIET UNION. Reagan had to compromise. He had to reach across the aisle. He had to tell Irish jokes with a RAT.
Not sure what you mean by this. That a post-Reagan Constitution Party would mimic today's Republican Party?
If so you're saying that where the GOP is now is essentially the center of gravity where all major political entities would meander to, and our country as we've known it most of this century died with Ronald Reagan.
Is that a fair assessment of what you're driving at? IF not, can you elaborate further?
This is simple math.
3rd Parties are stupid ideas. They only give the Democrats more chances to win.
Idiotic FOX snoozer has no idea about Reagan or Conservatism or the fact that Romney was a LOSER FLIP-FLOPPER with all his hispanadering, hatred for Conservatives and Libertarians and lack of credible economic savy, stupidity of fighting for Islamic Freedom! Forget about FOX it is crap, worthless bunch of assplats!
Faux News always sucked, now they’re just as leftist as the rest of them.
I disagree with you, Reagan would have easily won because his campaign would have been totally different, you forget that being able to communicate his conservative message and inspire, and motivate, was what made Reagan such a winner.
Romney has always been a loser, 20 years of running for office and a single victory and a single term as a failed, liberal governor that couldn’t win reelection and left with 34% approval.
Romney despised Reagan, and now people are trying to hide his being such a loser in politics, by pretending that Reagan was just another Romney and that this would have been the same election regardless of who ran, because Romney is as good as Reagan.
Romney was everything that republicans disagree with, he was the anti-Reagan, he never should have been in republican politics in the first place (he abandoned it when it was the Reagan party) , much less as it’s presidential candidate.
You don’t know anything about Reagan, quit trying to make him sound like an idiot.
At least you are doing better than .500, maybe one day . . .
“3rd Parties are stupid ideas. They only give the Democrats more chances to win.”
Unless the third party becomes a powerful force (in which case the 3rd party becomes the ‘2nd party’).
As is often quoted: “Nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come.”
On the other hand you may well be right; maybe we should just allow the GOPe to conduct business as usual, and see how that works out.
Now, now anse, that's not very nice.
Make RR sound like an idiot? Far from it!
I'm not going to sit here and try to convince you what I do and do not know about Ronald Reagan. Suffice it to say that I know enough to make an educated guess as to what he would do at this point in time given the history of past CIC’c since he was President, and the leanings of the GOPe. I also take note of whom the party has historically embraced and who they shun.
Have a good night anse112. And don't forget to take your teddy bear with you to bed tonight.
From Freeper IMissPresidentReagans homepage, this quote from Ronald Reagan in 1964 should be widely disseminated:
We dont intend to turn the Republican Party over to the traitors in the battle just ended. We will have no more of those candidates who are pledged to the same goals of our opposition and who seek our support. Turning the party over to the so-called moderates wouldnt make any sense at all. Ronald Reagan commenting moderate Republicans who didnt support Goldwater in 1964
Id say the Gipper was very prescienthe described just where we need to be today.
The GOP is nothing more than a group of people.
The only reason we can’t get a conservative nominee, is that WE in the Conservative movement can’t make up our minds and we are impossible to please.
If egotistical conservatives could swallow their pride and back ONE candidate, in the primary, we would not be stuck with John McCain or Mitt Romney next time.
It is the SPLIT caused by the grumpy, impossible, perfectionist conservatives that causes us to lose in the Primary contests.
Now? You want to take that same bad attitude and make it IMPOSSIBLE to win in the General Election?
Every third party flake wants the hero of the republican party for their own but he is already taken and he is dead, make your own sales pitch for your new party, don’t try to hijack two time Republican President Ronald Reagan.
“Now? You want to take that same bad attitude and make it IMPOSSIBLE to win in the General Election?”
I don’t have a bad attitude. The record is clear and dates back for many years - the GOP does not have the intestinal fortitude to effect the kind of change we need at this juncture of our history.
One can make a convincing argument that the Republicans really did not want to win the last two Presidential elections. McCain left a tremendous amount to be desired and Romney could have nailed obama on several key issues but chose to play it ‘safe’.
It is not an overstatement to say we absolutely needed a win this time. Everyone knows the left plays by no rules; they’ll lie, cheat, and steal to get what they want.
The Republican machine needed to act accordingly, but they wimped out again. As Mitt Romney said, ‘We deserve better’.
I originally opined here in response to a question being brought forward: ‘What would RR do after obama’s win?’
I stated as I believe. There's no sales pitch here, nor is one necessary. The GOP has done all the selling that needs to be done. There is no excuse for losing this election. obama should have been a gift to the Republican Party. It's not just the economy. obama’s entire record is shameful and un-American. McCain lost to a guy who nobody even knew anything about, and Romney lost to a guy who hates this country and is bent on driving us into the ditch.
The bottom line is that the GOP is not up to the job. They're just not getting it done, and our time is running out, btw.
So by default, we'll have to give a different party a chance. You obviously disagree, but that's the way I see it.