Posted on 02/26/2005 1:23:38 PM PST by wagglebee
Craig Shirley’s highly acclaimed new book, "Reagan’s Revolution: The Untold Story of the Campaign that Started It All" [Nelson Current, January 2005], details the story of Ronald Reagan’s first campaign for the presidency in 1976 against incumbent Gerald Ford. The historic campaign, although ultimately unsuccessful, united a dying party following Watergate and proved to be launch pad for the modern-day Conservative Movement.
Today, the Democratic Party finds itself in a similar situation following Sen. John Kerry’s loss in 2004. Although the Democrats do not have a Watergate on their hands, they are suffering from a similar lack of leadership and congruent message as the Republicans of 1976. And some Democrats are looking to that campaign for guidance.
"What is remarkable about Shirley’s stirring account of the start of the revolution is his description of the state of the GOP in 1976. The party establishment had been practicing a move to the left strategy for years, unhappy conservatives were beginning to talk about forming a third party, and open talk about a 'brain dead' Republican Party devoid of ideas was commonplace," said 2004 Howard Dean for President Campaign Manager Joe Trippi. "As I read his book, I felt I was reading the description of the Democratic Party of today."
Even Al Franken, comedian turned liberal talk show host, raved about the historical significance and lessons to be learned from the book in a live radio interview with Shirley from the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington.
"Ronald Reagan’s introduction of the conservative ideology in 1976 brought the Republican Party out of the death throes following the Watergate scandal," said Shirley. "It was a campaign that can teach us all valuable lessons about the importance of having a clear ideological leader in a political party, salient message, and a unified ideological agenda."
Ditto. When Reagan started his national political career, the majority of Americans did not have a voice in the media, Washington DC and academia. Many resented what they saw in liberal policies on welfare, affirmative action, the pummelling of America by the world and leftwing, etc, etc. When Reagan introduced the conservative ideals, it had a hungry and waiting audience to receive it. What are the liberals in the Democratic Party going to offer to the public? More liberalism?
That the left thinks it can simply remove republican ideas and initiatives and drop in dem ones and poof! everything will work out shows why they're such losers. They can't even come up with a way to sell their lunatic positions, so they think simply SELLING them in a new way will make it all better.
Stop making fun of me! :)
I'd never do such a thing. 0:) (That's a halo.)
Quit being one dimensional, the attack, praise routine is getting old.
O-Kay.
They tried to replicate Limbaugh and failed.
They are trying to replicate Newt strategies.
Hillary's trying to take a page from G.W.
Now the Democrats wish to copy Reagan.
I'm just curious. Is it possible they'll ever realize all these people in one way or another advanced various conservatives policies either economic, in foriegn policy or social? That perhaps the message may have been even more important than the messenger?
Nah.
The RATS don't get it, Reagans popularity was becase of his stand against bigger government and less regulations. The RATS are controlled by lawyers, and they never saw a tax hike they didn't like, think about it.
The Democrats DID have a "Watergate" crisis on their hands, but they did not play it out. A President with a sense of decency (Nixon) stepped down, at the behest of his own party. The Democrats has an eerily parallel situation, but they did NOT ask the occupant of the White House to step down, and in fact, went on to extol him as some kind of "hero".
History will record this as an enhancement to the legacy of Nixon, who, though he had been stripped of every honor and was reviled even by those he thought his allies, still managed to emerge as a senior statesman in the twilight of his years. The "hero" of Whitewater, on the other hand, never did learn how to keep his mouth shut on the occasions when it would have been of vast benefit for him to have done so.
As a result, the Democrat party is floundering around in a morass of their own making, unable to offer leadership or even a coherent vision, and finding their only tactics lie in constant criticism, without offering any alternatives, whether or not those alternatives are viable, plausible, or even possible.
Yes, just as Gerald Ford had trouble producing an agenda based on truth. One of the lessons of 1976 that I took out of it is that sometimes it is a good thing when milktoastrepublicans lose.
Gerald Ford was every DemonRat's favorite Republican. Lyndon Johnson got it right when he said Ford had "played too much football without a helmet." Ayn Rand also had it right when she created Wesley Mouch, aptly described as "the zero at the meeting point of forces." Gerald Ford, who appointed John Paul Stevens, one of the most vile liberals on the Supreme Court, could be accurately described the same way.
And that's their problem. Reagan was a force of nature. For younger conservatives, it's hard to explain. No politician on the national scene had 1/10 of his conviction and charisma. He came from nowhere (he'd been out of the California governorship for years) in an era when the left had a complete monopoly on media, at a time when the Republicans were still reeling from Watergate, and at a time when the Republican party was dominated by Nixon/Ford type politicians (eg, the EPA and wage and price controls were Republican initiatives passed only a few years before Reagan ran for president).
All Reagan did was take over the Republican party, win his countrymens' hearts, reverse a decade of economic malaise and win the cold war--all in 12 short years.
I do not expect to see his equal again in my lifetime. He is uncopyable. With much respect for W, I still have to say that neither party has a politician in his class. We don't call him Ronaldus Magnus on this board as a joke.
The problem of Democraps is one of ideology verses money! If they do not slave themselves to the Left, theres no money! Hillary has no charisma and neither did Kerry. Unless Bush really hoses up the works in the next 4 years or the Republican't nominate a moron like McCain or Frist, theres no way a Democrap can win unless they move to the Zell Miller right....and thats just not gonna happen
:)
Gee thanks. Always a critic in every crowd.
Mr. and Mrs. America are not going to unite behind the Democrat party promising higher taxes for all, homosexual marriage for all, mandatory homosexual sex lessons for all children, social security benefit cuts, and people earning 25k being declared rich.
The democrat (gay) party Solution? free recreational drugs. A stoned populace asks no questions.
I had a similar response. The 'rats won't come back to power by reading a book about Republicans. And, they have no one of the stature and charisma of Ronaldus Magnus.
He was a unifier by appealing to America's highest dreams and aspirations and self-respect. He brought out the best in us.
The 'rats will appeal, as they have in the past, to the worst instincts of envy and greed, and will divide the nation against itself. They have no choice.
You could spell it out to these losers in large printed words of one syllable and they still won't get it. It is alien to their nature to want to heal a rift instead of exacerbate it. ("I hate republicans and everything they stand for!")
"Gerald Ford was every DemonRat's favorite Republican. "
For the record and for younger freepers, this was literally true. Ford was a congenial "moderate" from the House who never offended anyone and who was not identified with the Nixon administration or partisan politics, particularly.
When Nixon first nominated him to replace Agnew as Veep, there was a tremendous sigh of relief and indeed praise for Nixon to have set up such a benign nonentity for the presidency.
The fear at the time was that Nixon would fight impeachment down to the last vote, likely survive as a crippled president, but as they said back then, it would "tear the country apart."
When he nominated Ford it was clear that Nixon knew his days were numbered and he was preparing a successor.
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.