I love Sarah and her message. But as a Presidential candidate? *shudder*
Way to go.
This is not a pie in the sky world. Nobody is perfect.
Sarah is doing exactly what she said she was going to do...good on her. In terms of the trashing she gets - she’s got an iron will because she fears God more than the opinion of men. May she live & be well....and may her tribe increase.
The way I understand it, he accepted amnesty to get enforcement, after which no further amnesties would have been needed. We got the amnesty, but not the enforcement we were willing to accept the amnesty we were willing to exchange for it. I don't know if Reagan was a knowing part of the bait and switch, or a victim of it like the rest of us. He seemed like a pretty straightforward guy, so I assume the latter.
Just because of an (R) after the name does not mean we should blindly support everything they do - been there, regrettably done that, with GWB.
Congrats on a good point!
As well remember Reagan selected a RINO for his VP pick in 1976 if he was going to be the nominee and Jesse Helms got mad and threaten to pull his support from Reagan
Reagan was and is the best President we had in modern times, and it is embarrassing the way people turn against Palin...If she is wrong then disagree but don’t turn everything good that this woman has done in the past few months upside down and use liberal spin against her
Reagan did a variety of things that fit poorly into the conservative box, Like his push for national catastrophic health insurance( which came to nought--the 'rats in the House ironically said it was a "budget buster")but his convictions and goals were beyond dispute.
Likewise Palin, who is still finding her footing as a national spokesperson, is using judgment as well as litmus tests in making decisions.
Bush was no stranger to Washington. He spent a lot of time in his father's White House and knew first hand what the 'rats did to his father, but he didn't learn from watching that close up. A serious defect in judgment that cost him and the nation dearly.
I do not have words to tell you how much I related to your words-wise words-regarding President Reagan, President Bush and Governor Palin. I think you are spot on and I certainly appreciate your common sense attitude. Many thanks for an excellent essay.
The criticism of Palin, largely based upon her endorsements and the belief that she "quit" her job, are not logical.
Only God is perfect. Nothing of men ever is. Demanding perfect purity in Politics is a sure prescription for political irrelevance. This is why the Libertarian wing of the Conservative movement has been so completely ineffective for the last 20 years. This is why Conservatives always lose to the RINOS.
The Purist choir all keep wasting all their time making the perfect the enemy of the good. They are so busying spending all their time worrying about the dogmatic purity in their political allies they never have any time, or energy left to fight the Leftists on anything. They are so busy factionalizing their political base into competing interest groups, they have nothing left to ever fight the progressives. No wonder the Left is continually kicking the their asses in election after election.
As one famous Conservative leader said " A man who agrees with me 80% of the time is a trusted friend and ally, not a 20% traitor"
Curious what these sort of ideological purist would of said about a President who presided over a worse recession then this current one, appointed a Liberal to the Supreme Court, Raised taxes 6 times, doubled the size of the Fed Budget in 8 years. Spent, prior to this regime, record deficits. Ran away from a Muslim terrorist threat. Signed an illegal Alien Amnesty. Lost control of the US Senate to the Democrats on his watch.
What would they say about that? Using the sort of purist dogma shouted on every possible thread daily around here, I suspect, the Purist Choir would be screaming "RINO" at that former President and assigning him to rank down there with Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, U.S. Grant, and Warren Harding as one of America’s worst Presidents because he did not pass their personal ideological purity test.
-
-
-
-
-
That President was Ronald Reagan. Probably the greatest President of the 20th Century.
Reagan had words for your sort of ideological 100%er.
By Ronald Reagan in his autobiography An American Life
“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.”
It is pretty obvious that were FR around during the Reagan administration he would have been criticized as a tax raising, amenesty granting, big spending, cutting and running in the middle east Rino. Anyone with any logic who reads much around here can not escape that conclusion.
there is a small group of folks here who like Romney or Paul or whomever like Rabs or BobJ and have always smeared Palin.
there is another group of Palin supporters here like me who don't like a few of her choices of endorsement or funding...Quueg and Fioriana endorsed, gave 1000 to Graham...not the end of the world but one wonders....btw...the founder of this forum is in this group of Palin admirers but has critiqued her dismissal of DeVore
then there are freepers who have a cow over any dissent over Palin....and they label it destructive politics while they themselves attempt to control this forum...just like they did when Bush strayed....these folks get very personal and vulgar very quickly
hopefully Palin’s flaws will be few but it is quite normal to admire and support a candidate and oppose some things they do
i personally just don't want another Bush where they wheels fell off like in the second term
don't worry about Palin...give her an issue and a camera and an audience and she will get the job done...that is where she is magnificent
Sarah Palin remains my top choice, heck my only choice for president at this point.
But I’m not cheering her on in supporting John McCain or Carly Fiorina. They are progressive Republicans (RINO’s).
If that makes me a hater of Sarah, I guess I am.
Otherwise, go get em Sarah.
Thank you!
bttt
I think you are missing something in your formulation: you are retroactively expecting Reagan to address problems that were not on the front burner in the 1980s. You might as well belabor George Washington about the Great Depression or something.Ronald Reagan
Those were the priorities of the nation at the time, and that was what he did. He was not prescient about the result of the amnesty we now know didn't work, nor about the fact that Islamic terrorists would train in Afghanistan and conduct four coordinated airline hijack/kamikazee attacks on NY and Washington.
- Got the country going again,
- Whipped inflation,
- Transcended Communism, and
- Got the Energy Crisis in remission.
If you go back a little further in time, to the Ford Administration, you can critique the entire Republican Party over the fact that its priority was balancing the budget because it had not yet - as it did in 1980 behind the leadership of Reagan and Jack Kemp after the disastrous 1970s - committed itself to the principle that the public interest required low taxes as the first priority. We still want balanced budgets, but now we know that the Democrats will overspend any level of revenue which might be extracted from the public via taxation. So our first demand is tax limitation - and only then do we want a balanced budget.
My priority for the next presidential election is a conservative nominee who is a former governor who can and will effectively attack a Democrat with a brown skin. And right now the list of people willing and able to do that is headed by Sarah Palin - and perhaps ended there as well.
I insist on a governor for the next presidential nominee, for the simple reason that no senator has ever defeated a sitting president, and only one senator (Harding) ever defeated a governor running for president.Governor Palin has a lot of critics, including some Republicans - but you can't beat somebody with nobody and, IMHO, compared to Palin the rest of the nominal presidential timber is "nobody."
Reagan came on the cusp of a new vision of conservatism. He would have adapted and led conservative members in the same spirit that many members of FR have adopted.
Reagan would have helped articulate what it means to be a RINO, Reagan would have welcomed Rush Limbaugh to the White House and encouraged people to tune into Rush. Likewise Reagan would have singled out many other conservatives for praise and promotion.
FR would be firmly behind Reagan and Reagan would be our conservative leader.
Reagan in his time did not have the numbers of conservatives members to draw upon for supreme court nominations. Conservatism in legal circles was nascent and undeveloped.
As to your attempt to drive a wedge between FR conservatives and a beloved historical leader of theirs in history, you are wasting your time.
Of course he would be “trashed here”, (he already has been). What would you expect from the savants here? They don’t sit in front of a PC 24/7 because they’re merely social misfits!