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

Skip to comments.

Ronald Reagan on the importance of political compromise(in his own words)
An American Life (his autobiography) | 8/7/03 | Ronald Reagan

Posted on 08/07/2003 2:05:04 PM PDT by Diddle E. Squat

"When I began entering into the give and take of legislative bargaining in Sacramento, a lot of the most radical conservatives who had supported me during the election didn't like it.

"Compromise" was a dirty word to them and they wouldn't face the fact that we couldn't get all of what we wanted today. They wanted all or nothing and they wanted it all at once. If you don't get it all, some said, don't take anything.

"I'd learned while negotiating union contracts that you seldom got everything you asked for. And I agreed with FDR, who said in 1933: 'I have no expectations of making a hit every time I come to bat. What I seek is the highest possible batting average.'

"If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, and that's what I told these radical conservatives who never got used to it.


TOPICS: Extended News; Government; Philosophy; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: compromiseorsellout; conservatism; howfaristoofar; howtogainpower; howtowin; idealism; incrementalism; liberalism; politicalreality; pragmatism; reagan; reagancompromise; reaganconservatives; ronaldreagan; winheartsandminds
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-167 next last
Thanks to freeper Justshe for pointing out this very relevant passage.
1 posted on 08/07/2003 2:05:04 PM PDT by Diddle E. Squat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: justshe
Thanks for the heads up on that passage. It seemed so relevant today, that I took the liberty of starting its own thread.
2 posted on 08/07/2003 2:05:54 PM PDT by Diddle E. Squat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Diddle E. Squat
This thread is not an endorsement of Arnold. Good reasons can be put forth to support McClintock. But this does provide food for thought.
3 posted on 08/07/2003 2:06:55 PM PDT by Diddle E. Squat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Diddle E. Squat
The problem with our current administration is that they are not even close to 75% of their agenda.

If anything, GW has conceeded to 75% fo the opposition agenda.

I know...I know...strategery right?

I don't expect Arnold to be a conservative...he has never claimed that title and he is married to a Kennedy.
4 posted on 08/07/2003 2:09:35 PM PDT by dinok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dinok
If anything, GW has conceeded to 75% fo the opposition agenda.

Has he? If he is able to overhaul the courts via appointments(very possible with a win in 2004), how much does that count for in advancing conservatism? Does that count as just a single issue, considering all the ramifications and that the courts are now the liberals' endgame backdoor to overriding the constitution?

I see no signs of Bush giving in on the courts.

5 posted on 08/07/2003 2:13:35 PM PDT by Diddle E. Squat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Diddle E. Squat
the gipper quoting FDR......
6 posted on 08/07/2003 2:13:36 PM PDT by joesnuffy (Moderate Islam Is For Dilettantes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dinok
Exactly right. Rush has said it repeatedly. When you compromise to promote the conservative agenda, fine. But when you compromise and promote the left's agenda, that's the problem. And that's the problem with signing the campaign finance bill, a complete surrender; signing Daschle's ag bill, a complete surrender; signing Kennedy's ed bill; a near complete surrender; and offering to sign ANY prescription drug bill that expands Medicare. There's a difference between compromise and surrender on important domestic issues.
7 posted on 08/07/2003 2:14:07 PM PDT by holdonnow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Diddle E. Squat
I should hope that no one is under the ilussion that if McClintock wins, California conservatives will get everything they want.

There's give and take, and there's compromising.

Having said that, there's compromise and then there's capitulation. McClintock may only be able to take half the ground we want to take, but voting for Arnold is the equivalent of total surrender of our territory to the left.

To use the batting average analogy, McClintock may be able to bat .320, Arnold will hit .059 and score a bunch for the other. That's the difference.

8 posted on 08/07/2003 2:15:09 PM PDT by Keyes2000mt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: holdonnow
Is that really a surrender, or ceding ground on the battlefield to preserve/consolidate resources for bigger battles? Is he really selling out Poland, or is it just a temporary conservative quagmire on the longer road to Baghdad?
9 posted on 08/07/2003 2:18:02 PM PDT by Diddle E. Squat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Diddle E. Squat
Noiminating conservative judges isn't the same as getting them confirmed. The new tone prevents Bush from pushing these candidates through -- the so-called "nuclear" option. I'm told Bill Frist won't push because Bush doesn't want the Senate's legislative "work" to be hindered.
10 posted on 08/07/2003 2:19:13 PM PDT by holdonnow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Diddle E. Squat
I wish some of our more pure conservative brethren could consider these words.
11 posted on 08/07/2003 2:20:17 PM PDT by Redleg Duke (Stir the pot...don't let anything settle to the bottom where the lawyers can feed off of it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Diddle E. Squat
Stop deluding yourself. Bush is a great wartime president, and a moderate on most domestic issues. Not liberal, but moderate. Now, deal with it.
12 posted on 08/07/2003 2:20:28 PM PDT by holdonnow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Redleg Duke
"Pure" conservative guys? I suppose there are some of them around here, but that doesn't address other conservatives who are concerned about the failure to limit domestic spending (apart from law enforcement, homeland security). You don't have to be a "pure" conservative to oppose double-digit spending increases on liberal programs.
13 posted on 08/07/2003 2:22:04 PM PDT by holdonnow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: holdonnow
But is Bush gambling for a larger win in 2004, with Senate gains, and thus a clear mandate from which to then push through a host of conservative judges, including likely 3 USSC appointments, along with more conservative reforms in areas beyond the courts(though admittedly such a strategy IS a gamble).
14 posted on 08/07/2003 2:22:33 PM PDT by Diddle E. Squat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Redleg Duke
I wish some of our more pure conservative brethren could consider these words.

So do I. We didn't get into this mess overnight. We won't get out of this mess overnight, no matter what some may think.

BTW, I still think that the tube's pointed at Lawton, I don't care what the AFATDS console says. :o)

15 posted on 08/07/2003 2:23:50 PM PDT by Poohbah (Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Diddle E. Squat
This isn't and either or situation. Bush has 55 votes to confirm his judges -- even the most "controversial" nominees. Frist needs to stop the filibuster by scheduling a vote to end filibusters for judicial nominees, which requires a simple majority vote to change the Senate rules. He won't do it because of the White House's concern that other legislative matters would be lost to an angry debate, and the president doesn't want the showdown prior to the election. This should be an occasion for victory, to tell the people what the left has been doing, and to urge voters to elect more senators on these grounds alone.
16 posted on 08/07/2003 2:25:55 PM PDT by holdonnow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: holdonnow
Good to see you around, counselor. Spot on as to W, as well....
17 posted on 08/07/2003 2:25:58 PM PDT by eureka! (Rats and Presstitutes lie--they have to in order to survive.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: eureka!
Thanks my friend. Well, have to go. Take care.
18 posted on 08/07/2003 2:27:57 PM PDT by holdonnow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: holdonnow
There's a difference between compromise and surrender on important domestic issues.

Exactly. An example of this was President Reagan's courageous stand in Reykjavik, Iceland. Against all of his advisors advice, he walked away rather than compromise the SDI initiative. Mikel Gorbachev later said that it was at that moment that he realized that the Soviet Empire was over.

19 posted on 08/07/2003 2:28:06 PM PDT by Ronaldus Magnus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Diddle E. Squat
Very good points.

Let's not blow it on California the way we did last time. I am not thrilled with Schwarzenegger on a lot of points (and I'm Catholic, so I REALLY don't like his support for abortion), but I think that any Republican would be better than any Democrat.

Schwarzenegger is probably going to be more conservative fiscally than socially - but that would be a big plus for CA. He has supported some state welfare programs, but he's also aware of the need to make CA business friendly. And even Dems (like some of my family members out there) would vote for him. He has great appeal, for one reason or another, and this was something that Reagan had, too.

A "moderate" Republican would probably give us some of the things we want, and get Bush reelected. A Dem - any Dem - is going to give us nothing. Zip. Zero. Zilch.

So let's be realistic here.
20 posted on 08/07/2003 2:29:14 PM PDT by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: holdonnow
Gosh, it must suck for Rush to be no longer the "Main Man" on The Right, isn't it? He has to take a back seat to a real leader, and it burns him up, and you, as well.Your analysis has been atrocious the past two years, and no matter how often you and Rush get it wrong, you still act like you have some sort of credibility.You'd think you'd get tired of all that hubris.

21 posted on 08/07/2003 2:29:32 PM PDT by habs4ever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: holdonnow
This isn't and either or situation. Bush has 55 votes to confirm his judges -- even the most "controversial" nominees. Frist needs to stop the filibuster by scheduling a vote to end filibusters for judicial nominees, which requires a simple majority vote to change the Senate rules.

??????

I was under the impression that rules changes could be filibustered as well. If you're right, I learned something new.

22 posted on 08/07/2003 2:29:52 PM PDT by Poohbah (Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Ronaldus Magnus
And Bush went into Iraq, after winning the commitments of the members of both houses (pity the Dems seem to have forgotten that fact now!), and opposing the world, the UN and, worst of all, the press. The result will be a changed Middle East, and the ultimate decline of terrorism - not overnight, but then, the USSR didn't fall overnight, either.
23 posted on 08/07/2003 2:32:51 PM PDT by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: livius
I have noticed that almost nobody is noting that Arnold on the Tonight Show specifically named the unions as being a huge part of the problem in Sacramento. What Dem would dare do that?

For full disclosure, I am not a Californian, and if I was I would still have not made up my mind between McClintock and Arnold. Too early, would wait to see who emerges as having the best chance to win. But would be open to supporting either, for now.
24 posted on 08/07/2003 2:33:23 PM PDT by Diddle E. Squat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: holdonnow
Good points, thanks for taking the time to post.
25 posted on 08/07/2003 2:34:21 PM PDT by Diddle E. Squat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: holdonnow
There's a difference between compromise and surrender on important domestic issues.

ZING!

I'm getting so sick of seeing this quote by Reagan used as Bush propaganda. These people think everyone is stupid.

26 posted on 08/07/2003 2:34:33 PM PDT by AAABEST
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: habs4ever
"Gosh, it must suck for Rush to be no longer the "Main Man" on The Right, isn't it? He has to take a back seat to a real leader, and it burns him up, and you, as well.Your analysis has been atrocious the past two years, and no matter how often you and Rush get it wrong, you still act like you have some sort of credibility.You'd think you'd get tired of all that hubris."

27 posted on 08/07/2003 2:45:03 PM PDT by AAABEST
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: AAABEST
I'm getting so sick of seeing this quote by Reagan used as Bush propaganda. These people think everyone is stupid.

For dealing with the Bush-bashers, it's a fairly safe assumption.

28 posted on 08/07/2003 2:51:29 PM PDT by Poohbah (Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
Yeah I know, we're all stupid and evil. We must be if we don't worship the master.

I guess you guys will be adding Mark to your "enemies" list now too? Along with Novak, Rush, Will, Cato, tons of FReepers and a whole host of others. Your "friends" list includes such stellar conservatives as Bill Krytol, Tony Blair and Karl Rove.

You can have your "smart" friends, I'll stick with my "stupid" ones.
29 posted on 08/07/2003 2:59:37 PM PDT by AAABEST
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: AAABEST
Yeah I know, we're all stupid and evil

No, that's Gray Doofus. Y'all just subtract the evil part.

30 posted on 08/07/2003 3:18:37 PM PDT by Poohbah (Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: holdonnow
And that's the problem with signing the campaign finance bill, a complete surrender; signing Daschle's ag bill, a complete surrender; signing Kennedy's ed bill; a near complete surrender; and offering to sign ANY prescription drug bill that expands Medicare.

You can't get his batting average by only looking at a few games. In my opinion, Rush is dead wrong in his constant references to Reagan. Reagan had a national mandate, he came to the White House with almost a 10 point victory and a country so battered by Carter that it was starving for leadership. Reagan was a great president but with a very different hand to play. I'm not sure that I believe he would have played Bush's much differently than Bush has, especially if his priorties were forced by the events of September 11.

31 posted on 08/07/2003 3:21:48 PM PDT by Dolphy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

"Compromise" was a dirty word to them and they wouldn't face the fact that we couldn't get all of what we wanted today. They wanted all or nothing and they wanted it all at once. If you don't get it all, some said, don't take anything
The uncompromizing conservatives would rather have President Hillary than President Bush.

After all, they keep repeating that there is no difference between the Pubbies and Rats.

The one-party cartel blah, blah, blah

32 posted on 08/07/2003 3:22:50 PM PDT by george wythe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Diddle E. Squat
Great book.
33 posted on 08/07/2003 3:26:04 PM PDT by Huck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Diddle E. Squat
***It seemed so relevant today, that I took the liberty of starting its own thread.***

It IS relevant. I took a moment to read the posts on this thread. Pretty typical of what I expected.

Thanks!
34 posted on 08/07/2003 3:28:50 PM PDT by justshe ("Do you trust a Democrat to protect America?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: AAABEST; habs4ever
I certainly hope you're not implying that habs4ever's opinion is any less worthy because habs is in Canada.

Or are you insinuating that maybe habs just shouldn't be entitled to an opinion at all???
35 posted on 08/07/2003 3:31:17 PM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: AAABEST; holdonnow
I'm getting so sick of seeing this quote by Reagan used as Bush propaganda. These people think everyone is stupid.

And I get sick of malcontents using Ronald Reagan as reason to trash GW.

Ronald Reagan's Justice dept.(which you worked for holdonnow, BTW) never stated publicly that the 2nd amendment is a private right.

If Ronald Regan could say his peace about the current administration, I have no doubt that it would be praise, but that doesn't stop Reagan employees to smear his legacy due to his current disability(hint, hint, Mark)

BTW, AAA, I will wait for your obigatory and cowardly reply(not pinging me and putting up a derogatory picture towards me as your reply).

36 posted on 08/07/2003 3:32:12 PM PDT by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: holdonnow
"When you compromise to promote the conservative agenda, fine. But when you compromise and promote the left's agenda, that's the problem."

com·pro·mise: A settlement of differences in which each side makes concessions.

Let's be honest here. Rush's definition of compromise is just a BIT skewed. MY side ONLY gets the benefits! Posh!

37 posted on 08/07/2003 3:37:14 PM PDT by justshe ("Do you trust a Democrat to protect America?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: holdonnow
offering to sign ANY prescription drug bill that expands Medicare (is a problem)

Don't see much opposition to it anywhere. It may be politically impossible to resist this and more. Lots more. The demographics are demanding it. Bush certainly can not turn public opinion around on the issue. I doubt congressmen or conservatives in the media can either.

38 posted on 08/07/2003 3:37:15 PM PDT by DPB101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Diddle E. Squat; Howlin; Stew Padasso
On a thread where Stew Padasso posted old video of Ari regarding the Assault Weapons Ban, you (Howlin) stated

To: Stew Padasso

The transcript has been posted at least 10 times.

And nothing is the matter; your agenda is on view for all to see.

9 posted on 08/06/2003 10:27 PM CDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

Will you now apply that same standard to this thread with the Reagan quote which has been posted more than 10 times on this site?

39 posted on 08/07/2003 3:44:53 PM PDT by Sir Gawain (Too much Bozo Spew broke my bozo filter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain
more than 10 times on this site?


Curious, as a thread?
40 posted on 08/07/2003 3:46:18 PM PDT by deport (Country fences need to be horse high, pig tight and bull strong.......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: dinok
He's a poor excuse for a Pubbie and don't forget it if he wins and when he supports abortion, more gun laws and homosexual agendas. Think not? Wait and see. As long as there is a Kennedy in the household, you will see a leftist lean for certain.
41 posted on 08/07/2003 3:46:41 PM PDT by Paulus Invictus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
I just find it interesting that a unknown Canadian nobody has the nerve to question the "credibility" of heavy hitters such as Rush and Mark Levin, and do it to his face no less.

Mark is doing things like suing the corrupt Nature Conservancy while "habs" runs his face about his credibility. "Habs" couldn't shine Mark's shoes.
42 posted on 08/07/2003 3:47:51 PM PDT by AAABEST
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain
Corrected link
43 posted on 08/07/2003 3:49:42 PM PDT by Sir Gawain (Too much Bozo Spew broke my bozo filter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: AAABEST
a unknown Canadian nobody

Charming. Just charming.

Mark is doing things like suing the corrupt Nature Conservancy while "habs" runs his face about his credibility.

So, basically what you're saying is that if none of us does 'things' like he does, we should jsut shut the hell up?

"Habs" couldn't shine Mark's shoes.

That is so beneath you.

44 posted on 08/07/2003 3:50:05 PM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain
Will you now apply that same standard to this thread with the Reagan quote which has been posted more than 10 times on this site?

Can't you do it yourself?

45 posted on 08/07/2003 3:50:55 PM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: deport
That's a possibility. So you and Howlin think this little paragraph merits its own thread, while Stew's link does not. No double standard there.
46 posted on 08/07/2003 3:51:10 PM PDT by Sir Gawain (Too much Bozo Spew broke my bozo filter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain
Uh SG, you do know that Ronald Reagan campaigned for the Brady bill, don't you?
47 posted on 08/07/2003 3:51:40 PM PDT by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain
Where did I say a think about meriting it's own thread? I only asked a question.......
48 posted on 08/07/2003 3:51:58 PM PDT by deport (Country fences need to be horse high, pig tight and bull strong.......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
Can't you do it yourself?

Sure...

Howlin says this little paragraph does not merit its own thread. It has been posted on FR more than 10 times already.

:-)

49 posted on 08/07/2003 3:52:21 PM PDT by Sir Gawain (Too much Bozo Spew broke my bozo filter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain
Too shy to speak up yourself?
50 posted on 08/07/2003 3:53:31 PM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-167 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