Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Cokie And Scarborough Not Sure Reagan Could Get Elected In GOP Today
NewsBusters ^ | Mark Finkelstein

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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: cokieroberts; guncontrol; joescarborough; ronaldreagan
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-63 next last

1 posted on 02/12/2013 7:11:12 AM PST by governsleastgovernsbest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom; Behind Liberal Lines; Miss Marple; an amused spectator; Diogenesis; MEG33; PGalt; ...

Ronald Reagan: RINO??? Cokie and Scarborough seem to think so. Ping to Today show list.


2 posted on 02/12/2013 7:12:19 AM PST by governsleastgovernsbest (FReepmail or ping me to be put on my ping list for criticism of liberal media)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest

and JFK would never get the Democrat nomination today either.

blah blah

If we want those idiots opinions, we’ll give it to them!


3 posted on 02/12/2013 7:13:14 AM PST by GeronL (http://asspos.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest

Aha! So YOU’RE the one who watches MSNBC.


4 posted on 02/12/2013 7:14:08 AM PST by Texas Eagle (If it wasn't for double-standards, Liberals would have no standards at all -- Te?xas Eagle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest

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.


5 posted on 02/12/2013 7:14:29 AM PST by kosciusko51 (Enough of "Who is John Galt?" Who is Patrick Henry?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest

Has it ever been discovered how a dead woman ended up in Joe Scarborough’s office when he was a Congresshole?


6 posted on 02/12/2013 7:15:42 AM PST by Texas Eagle (If it wasn't for double-standards, Liberals would have no standards at all -- Te?xas Eagle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest
And Joe would never have been elected in Escambia County if what is known now was known then.
7 posted on 02/12/2013 7:16:19 AM PST by gov_bean_ counter (Hope and Change has become Attack and Obfuscate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest

Maybe Karl Rove could entice Joe to throw his “Conservative” hat into the 2016 nomination ring?


8 posted on 02/12/2013 7:16:46 AM PST by TexasCajun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest
Right, Joe & Cokie.

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.

9 posted on 02/12/2013 7:17:44 AM PST by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest

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.


10 posted on 02/12/2013 7:18:40 AM PST by ilgipper (Obama supporters are comprised of the uninformed & the ill-informed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest

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.


11 posted on 02/12/2013 7:18:49 AM PST by sickoflibs (Losing to Dems and Obama is not a principle! Its just losing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Texas Eagle
Has it ever been discovered how a dead woman ended up in Joe Scarborough’s office when he was a Congresshole?

I'll bet Lori Klausutis' parents always wondered.

12 posted on 02/12/2013 7:18:49 AM PST by COBOL2Java (Fighting Obama without Boehner & McConnell is like going deer hunting without your accordion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest

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.


13 posted on 02/12/2013 7:19:12 AM PST by stanne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest

I love how Democrat spokesmen like these two are always telling Republicans how to think.


14 posted on 02/12/2013 7:20:52 AM PST by AppyPappy (If you aren't part of the solution, there is good money to be made prolonging the problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest
They are correct...between the GOPe and the communists in the ‘Rat party they would paint him worse then Pol Pot...
15 posted on 02/12/2013 7:23:33 AM PST by rightwingextremist1776
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest

Who wouldn’t want to take political advice advice from a 120 year old professional leftist battle-axe and a RINO male whore?


16 posted on 02/12/2013 7:26:11 AM PST by Iron Munro (I miss America, don't you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Texas Eagle

Foster knew.

But like the Ambassador, he *and she* are just more
DNC victims without accountability.


17 posted on 02/12/2013 7:26:18 AM PST by Diogenesis (De Oppresso Liber)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ilgipper

Very true.

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.


18 posted on 02/12/2013 7:28:29 AM PST by Breyean
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest

The republican establishment today would not allow a “Reagan” to get the nomination. Has nothing to do with voters.


19 posted on 02/12/2013 7:28:36 AM PST by ryan71
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest

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.”


20 posted on 02/12/2013 7:29:18 AM PST by junta ("Peace is a racket", testimony from crime boss Barrack Hussein Obama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest

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.


21 posted on 02/12/2013 7:30:24 AM PST by Thorliveshere (Tais deau sá taghdedaul!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest

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.


22 posted on 02/12/2013 7:30:31 AM PST by cotton1706
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: skeeter

I’m going to use that. Spot on.


23 posted on 02/12/2013 7:31:30 AM PST by FreedomPoster (Islam delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ryan71

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.


24 posted on 02/12/2013 7:36:21 AM PST by tanknetter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: cotton1706
The real reason that Newt didn't get the nomination:


25 posted on 02/12/2013 7:36:43 AM PST by kosciusko51 (Enough of "Who is John Galt?" Who is Patrick Henry?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: stanne

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.


26 posted on 02/12/2013 7:41:41 AM PST by bigdaddy45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: stanne

Did you see or know anything factual about “Argo”? I’m debating seeing it.


27 posted on 02/12/2013 7:43:12 AM PST by albie (`)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: kosciusko51

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.


28 posted on 02/12/2013 7:47:33 AM PST by cotton1706
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest

I’m surprised to find anyone here watching that show.


29 posted on 02/12/2013 7:50:00 AM PST by maizey (maizey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cotton1706
My point is, once the establishment picks their man, all others will be destroyed.

I agree with that completely (see post #5).

30 posted on 02/12/2013 7:50:25 AM PST by kosciusko51 (Enough of "Who is John Galt?" Who is Patrick Henry?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: cotton1706

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.”


31 posted on 02/12/2013 7:51:12 AM PST by treetopsandroofs (Had FDR been GOP, there would have been no World Wars, just "The Great War" and "Roosevelt's Wars".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: maizey

“I’m 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.


32 posted on 02/12/2013 7:53:03 AM PST by governsleastgovernsbest (FReepmail or ping me to be put on my ping list for criticism of liberal media)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: cotton1706

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.


33 posted on 02/12/2013 7:54:16 AM PST by tanknetter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: kosciusko51

I can’t argue with that.


34 posted on 02/12/2013 7:55:31 AM PST by treetopsandroofs (Had FDR been GOP, there would have been no World Wars, just "The Great War" and "Roosevelt's Wars".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest
If you want to find the source of RINO'ism in the Reagan Administration look no further than the Office of the Vice-President. Poppy Bush was not a Quayle, Biden, or Gore. He had tremendous power within the Executive Branch. His people were embedded through out and the one's making a lot of the policy. The Bush family consigliere, James Baker, was Reagan's Chief of Staff for cripes sake.

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.

35 posted on 02/12/2013 7:58:38 AM PST by Count of Monte Fisto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest

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.


36 posted on 02/12/2013 8:08:24 AM PST by Mr. Jeeves (CTRL-GALT-DELETE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Thorliveshere

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.


37 posted on 02/12/2013 8:12:51 AM PST by greene66
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: tanknetter

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.


38 posted on 02/12/2013 8:13:04 AM PST by cotton1706
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: kosciusko51
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.

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.

39 posted on 02/12/2013 8:24:49 AM PST by EricT. (The Second Amendment is Tyrant Control.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest

Someone like Duncan Hunter could be elected, though. Otherwise, Democrats...


40 posted on 02/12/2013 8:28:34 AM PST by familyop (We Baby Boomers are croaking in an avalanche of rotten politics smelled around the planet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: familyop

That is total crap. Duncan Hunter is not national material. He was fizz in California but bust out of his area


41 posted on 02/12/2013 8:30:53 AM PST by bert ((K.E. N.P. N.C. +12 .....The fairest Deduction to be reduced is the Standard Deduction)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: cotton1706

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).


42 posted on 02/12/2013 8:32:21 AM PST by tanknetter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest

Cokie And Scarborough Not Sure what time zone there in.


43 posted on 02/12/2013 8:49:35 AM PST by Vaduz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest

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.


44 posted on 02/12/2013 8:51:28 AM PST by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest

I’m not sure Ronald Reagan would have stayed in the republican party of today!!!


45 posted on 02/12/2013 8:57:05 AM PST by ontap
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ontap
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.

46 posted on 02/12/2013 8:59:00 AM PST by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest

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.


47 posted on 02/12/2013 8:59:18 AM PST by NKP_Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest

Well, if that’s true, why do so many candidates evoke his name and try to convince people they’re from the same mold?


48 posted on 02/12/2013 9:04:31 AM PST by edpc (Wilby 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest

Reagan today would not be pro “assault weapons” ban. He was pretty good at assaying reality.


49 posted on 02/12/2013 9:05:45 AM PST by arthurus (Read Hazlitt's Economics In One Lesson ONLINE www.fee.org/library/books/economics-in-one-lesson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rightwingextremist1776
Hey Admin...when are you going to restore my posting privileges? How much longer am I going to need to be baby sat? The site is looking for support, how inclined am I to support a website which I can not post unless someone baby sits my words? Not very..... I've been here for over 13 years....but I won't be around much longer if this keeps up.
50 posted on 02/12/2013 9:12:19 AM PST by rightwingextremist1776
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-63 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson