Skip to comments.Cokie And Scarborough Not Sure Reagan Could Get Elected In GOP Today
Posted on 02/12/2013 7:11:04 AM PST by governsleastgovernsbest
Ronald Reagan: RINO? Cokie Roberts and Joe Scarborough have suggested the Gipper might be viewed that way by the modern-day Republican party, making him unelectable within GOP ranks.
After Joe Scarborough said that it was Reagan who rounded up Republican support for the assault weapons ban in 1984, Roberts exclaimed "I'm not sure Reagan could get elected within the Republican party today." Scarborough concurred: "I don't know that he could."
View the video here.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
Ronald Reagan: RINO??? Cokie and Scarborough seem to think so. Ping to Today show list.
and JFK would never get the Democrat nomination today either.
If we want those idiots opinions, we’ll give it to them!
Aha! So YOU’RE the one who watches MSNBC.
They may be right, but for the wrong reason. The GOP-e tried to prevent Reagan from running in 1980, and they have moved leftward since. If the GOP-e had their way, GHWB would have been the candidate.
Has it ever been discovered how a dead woman ended up in Joe Scarborough’s office when he was a Congresshole?
Maybe Karl Rove could entice Joe to throw his “Conservative” hat into the 2016 nomination ring?
Its been amazing to watch Reagan go in a few short decades from the right wing cowboy who was going to get us all blown up to the reasonable moderate the democrats could do business with, in the MSM's estimation.
The truth is whatever they want it to be, I guess.
Ronald Reagan was to the right of the current tea party. He would have been a big fan of the TP, as Michael Reagan has discussed on many occasions. Reagan was a movement leader. His views are darn close to 100% in line with TP view, but he took the stands to completely do away with a number of departments. While those ideas are common among tea partiers, it is not the primary positions offered.
I saw Cokie make a different point on that show.
She said that conservative Reagan was able to get elected twice because whites made up a super majority of voters in those days, unlike these days.
And those whites under 30 then were much less lib than now.
I'll bet Lori Klausutis' parents always wondered.
Of course he couldn’t. He didn’t in 1980. The GOPe hated him and fought him every step of the way.
He paid no attention.
That’s what it will take this next time.
It takes the prez 30 seconds to recite his job description in front of the world and paying attention to that is all it takes and that’s a lot.
The bigger the party, the bigger the swindle.
Reagan took the oath then got to work.
First order of biz get thos hostages OUT - Day one (Affleck left that out - so did Carter- but Argo is still in theaters and still winning much to everyones’ amazement.
THe fluffies at the bureaus and the executive branch fought Mendez as well.
Difference? They ignored it.
What if Dr. Carson gave a care about what Bill Bennett or any of those on the right said? Well, he’d shut up and look like all the rest of the weenies on the reight. THey are the worst obstructors.
Reagan ingnored them. Paid attention to his job.
I love how Democrat spokesmen like these two are always telling Republicans how to think.
Who wouldn’t want to take political advice advice from a 120 year old professional leftist battle-axe and a RINO male whore?
But like the Ambassador, he *and she* are just more
DNC victims without accountability.
We were at the Reagan Museum a couple of months ago and one of the striking things (of many at that beautiful place) was listening to his speeches.
The ones on the economy, dating back DECADES, are as true and on point today as they were then. Maybe even more so.
I wondered why some current politician doesn’t just use the same speeches, updated with current stats and data, because they are just great.
The republican establishment today would not allow a “Reagan” to get the nomination. Has nothing to do with voters.
These two morons out to get down on their knees and thank god there is a GOP which can play along with the charade that people like Roberts can pretend to be part of the “elite.”
No, the current GOP would try and edge Ron out and get a moderate/liberal Repub in there. So, in a sense, they’re right.
What nonsense. The only reason why Reagan might not win in the GOP today is because the establishment would beat him back as they did Newt Gingrich. They successfully beat back Reagan in ‘76 and they thought he was destroyed. He rallied the people in New Hampshire with his “I am paying for this microphone” comment and took the momentum from Bush, the establishment’s man. From then on it was over.
If Gingrich had been able to take out Romney in either Iowa or Florida, Romney would have been done as Bush was. But the establishment saw the power of Gingrich’s ability to rally the people and sought to destroy them. Because they did not want another clear-voiced conservative getting the nomination. They want losses (Dole, McCain, Romney) or shallow victories (Bush, Bush). They do not want conservatives winning in overwheliming landslides (Reagan) and continuously work to undermine them.
I’m going to use that. Spot on.
Yes and no. He might not get the nomination - the determining factor would be how many other Conservative candidates there were diluting the vote. This highlights the inability of Conservatives to quickly coalesce around a single candidate, allowing a GOPe candidate to get the nomination via plurality.
However there’s no way that Reagan could win a general election. Just apply current demographic numbers to the voting stats of Reagans winning coalition. There are a lot less members of the groups that voted for Reagan, and a lot MORE of the ones that voted for Carter.
One problem.... Reagan did not “take the oath”, and then as a first order of business “Get those hostages out”. The deal was done before Reagan even took the oath. The hostages were released 20 minutes after Reagan took the oath. He was good. He wasn’t THAT good.
Did you see or know anything factual about “Argo”? I’m debating seeing it.
That’s very true. Gingrich should never have allied himself with the liberals. He gave the establishment ammunition against him. Gingrich’s resume, however, is one of real conservative accomplishment where Romney had to fake his way through the primaries, covering up Romneycare, his support of abortion, etc.
My point is, once the establishment picks their man, all others will be destroyed. Reagan was able to undercut them in 1980, and no conservative has been able to do it since because the establishment destroys all potential challengers very early.
I’m surprised to find anyone here watching that show.
I agree with that completely (see post #5).
I realize this is verboten to say, but *I* think Gingrich was responsible for much if not all of his own woes.
Just for ONE and excluding the wife..... Sitting on the couch with Nazi P was the worst of all metaphorical statements on what Gingrich was prepared to do for popularity.
Maybe he would have been good, he would certainly be better than the Fraud, but the same was also true of Romney, and about at least a third of “us” said Hell No to that, “I’m staying home to send a strong message to the GOP.”
“Im surprised to find anyone here watching that show.”
I’m paid to watch so you don’t have to! Morning Joe does help set the MSM agenda. I do think it’s useful to know what the other side is thinking.
I completely disagree. Look at the contenders for the 1980 nomination ... Reagan was the only real Conservative in the pack. Then imagine if Reagan were competing against Barry Goldwater, William F Buckley Jr and George HW Bush. Bush would be the nominee.
In 2012 I saw Conservatives splitting between Gingrich and Santorum. This is an oversimplification ( due to brevity - I’m writing this on a smartphone) but it amounted to 30% sayng Gingrich was the true Conservative, 30% saying that Santorum was and 40% saying that Romney was Conservative enough and could win. So Romney got the nomination, without really having a majority of the primary voters behind him.
My fervent hope for 2016 is that it’s a two candidate race for the nomination. But I know that won’t happen ... There’ll be five or six Conservatives dividing 60 to 70% of the vote while a moderate (Jeb Bush?) gets the nomination with only 30 to 40%. And Conservatives will be angry, will stay at home on election day but will never admit that they themselves are really to blame for the situation.
I can’t argue with that.
The one mistake Reagan made was bringing on George Bush as his running mate. It was only a few months later that the son of business partner and close family friend of the ex-CIA commander took a shot at Reagan. I think that being shot and a big effect on the President.
Reagan could talk over the heads of his detractors in the MSM better than any politician before or since. He could still win the Presidency today - though by much narrower margins than his 1984 blowout of Mondale. A lot of black and Hispanics and college-age white kids even then liked his plain-spoken, humorous delivery enough to support him - certainly at a higher percentage than the likes of McCain or Romney could ever attract.
That’s how I see it too. The media and the Rockefeller Republican crowd were definately against Reagan in 1980, and worked against him. The difference now is that the media and the GOP-E would actively “collude” together, and not just to defeat a Reagan, but to destroy him and obliterate every vestige of his person and his character, via smears, falsehoods, and any other mendacious weapon.
The point of my comments was not that Gingrich was the best choice, though overall I think that he was. Santorum in my view was a one trick pony and did not have the historical heft that Gingrich had.
Our best candidate in my view would have been Palin. She was a powerhouse and would have destroyed Romney on sheer support alone. With her destroyed, the conservative mantle was split among several candidates and shifted from one to the next while Romney’s established base of support remained the same. Gingrich was the only candidate (once Cain was out) who could rally the people just on his own ideas and his own voice. Just like Reagan, he won a primary on those alone. Unlike 1980, the establishment manufactured Romney’s momentum and destroyed all opponents because they remembered what happened after New Hampshire in 1980.
You may be right that if Reagan was in a crowd of conservatives, the vote splitting would have allowed the more moderate candidate to squeak through. That’s just a lesson that we must choose our potential nominee as early as the establishment does. I think the establishment are getting behind Rubio while the Tea Party is getting behind Paul. Keep your eye on anti-Paul stories.
That's what I was just thinking.
Too many people want to paint the GOP as a conservative party with an unfortunate problem of a progressive elite that have no principals and lean leftward. With few exceptions, the entire party apparatus is and always has been without principals and full of big-government progressives. The only exception was the election of Ronald Reagan. But that was only 8 years out of 159.
Some of you Republicans may disagree, but you can't argue with presidential primary election results.
Someone like Duncan Hunter could be elected, though. Otherwise, Democrats...
That is total crap. Duncan Hunter is not national material. He was fizz in California but bust out of his area
That’s it exactly. Altho I do think Palins support was soft enough in certain areas to make her vulnerable. I don’t see her doing well against Gingrich in debates ... and the first part of the GOP primaries recently has been about Conservative going after each other before going after the moderate ( who ends up being the nominee). Gingrich would see her as the first obstacle to get past before knocking off the other Conservatives and then finally going after Romney.
A Paul - Rubio contest in 2016 would be preferable. But my guess us that there are four or five other Conservatives in it as well. So we end up with a repeat of 2012: three final candidates of which two are Conservative and one GOPe ( or at least percieved as such ... I still need to do more homework on Rubio).
Cokie And Scarborough Not Sure what time zone there in.
Reagan wasn’t necessarily elected because of his stances on the issues....he was elected because people saw him as a true leader, and he had the political savvy that it took to win over people, even if they didn’t agree with him on everything he said.
I’m not sure Ronald Reagan would have stayed in the republican party of today!!!
He stayed in it while the Rockefeller Wing held sway.
No, RINO Scarborough could not get elected as a republican.
But he could elected as a liberal democrat, which is what he has became since the started working at PMSNBC, where his main role is to bash conservatives, most notably Sarah Palin.
Well, if that’s true, why do so many candidates evoke his name and try to convince people they’re from the same mold?
Reagan today would not be pro “assault weapons” ban. He was pretty good at assaying reality.
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.