March 1980: When the Establishment Believed Ronald Reagan Would Lead the GOP to Certain Defeat

Breitbart.com ^ | 18 Mar 2016 | James S. Robbins

[Beernoser]

It would be nice, but my hopes are not so high.

Even if indicted, which I just don’t see Loretta Lynch doing, feel confident that Obama will pardon her.

[digger48]

You are comparing Reagan to Trump??????

No, they weren't.

Only comparing the similarities in the hate for him by the Establishment.

[lentulusgracchus]

They’ve mostly died off, replaced by immigrants, some of which are MUCH MORE OPEN to voting Republican (particularly Hispanics)...so I’m not so sure that the demographics are any worse now.

That's only true of South American and Central American Hispanics. They're vote-splitters.

Mexicans, both nationals and immigrant and their progeny, are "culturally conservative" (meaning, their voting patterns and traditions persist down generations), and they tend to rally strongly to socialist (DemonRat) candidates.

If Grandpa Victoriano voted straight-ticket PRI or PRD 80 years ago, his grandsons and great-grandsons will vote for the most socialist candidate they can find on an American ballot, and they will teach their children to do likewise.

That's what Lyndon Johnson knew in 1953, when he tried to prevent the repatriation of Mexican braceros who'd come north as temporary war-workers in the 40's and stayed on afterward. President Eisenhower trumped LBJ's play by asserting presidential power, and that's why immigration ranked so high in 1965 when LBJ and the execrable Ted Kennedy b.s.'d the Senate into voting for the broken immigration non-system we have now.

Mexicans in the States mindlessly vote 70% straight-ticket Democrat, hurting the GOP up and down the ballot ...... that's why LBJ wanted to flood the country with Mexicans.

And Moslems vote 80% Democrat. That's why The Impostor and Durbin the Turban want to throw the doors wide to Moslem/jihadists ..... what's a few schools and malls blown up among vote-splitters, if you can get hordes of bombers to vote straight-ticket Democrat?

[Clintonfatigued]

http://www.last.fm/music/Shirley+Bassey/_/History+Repeating

[BobL]

“Yipee! We have trashed about everything else on here. Guess it is time to trash Reagan!”

I was responding to a comment...and yes, Reagan had flaws, BIG ONES. He could have done an Ike and cleared out California of Illegals, but now they vote and they have taken a purple (or arguably blue) state and made it SOLID RED.

[TheStickman]

You don’t get it. People attending his events & his supporters LOVE IT when he makes fun of Little Marco & Lyin’ Ted. I know I do. Have a nice day! Peace :)

Go Trump!

[dznutz]

However ..... Even though they lived in very different times and a much simpler culture than today's .... They did have an important advantage over most people of that time .... Heck .... They didn't even have to learn the and outs and limitations of governmental procedure as well as the checks and balances built into the constitution .... Because they wrote it and amended as needed.

True indeed, and look at the government the fledgling politicians devised.... I guess the point I was trying to make in a roundabout way is that maybe we are better off with someone who is not a career politician.

[lentulusgracchus]

Reagan was dismissed as just a lightweight Entertainer Showman that only appealed to the uninformed and uneducated rubes

Oh, indeed, indeed! Ronnie frequently wore well-cut brown suits ...... against the fashion dictate of arbiter Egon von Furstenburg (husband, back then, of Diane), who laid it down in the 70's that "a man in a brown suit will never be taken seriously."

That must have been why Ronnie couldn't break the Soviet Empire or crush the Democrats twice.

Yeah, that's it. Those brown suits.

[lentulusgracchus]

[You, quoting the Associated Press] Trump stuck to his position on targeting family members of militants and on an expansive use of torture against captured militants. [Emphasis added]

---

AP still equates enhanced interrogation to real torture for polemical purposes while "questioning" Republican candidates. They're effectively putting their words in other people's mouths. They need to be called on it, instantly and loudly, with good articulation for the slow-witted.

Republicans have been putting up for months -- years -- w/ moderators who play interrogator with polemical intentions and language.

[R_Kangel]

"... maybe we are better off with someone who is not a career politician."

..... I absolutely agree ....

[chimera]

Maybe not publicly, but the hate was there. In my town I knew a fair number of families, my own included, who would talk about how they were solidly in the Nixon camp even more than they would be otherwise because they hated Kennedy for being Catholic. That was a focus of the hate back then, and you still see it today, even on FR.

But, that aside, it remains my belief that a lot of voters tend to vote the way they do out of hatred in their hearts. And I do differentiate between anger and hatred. I understand the anger many have towards the "establishment" candidates. We vote for these people in election after election and the times they do win we send them in with a clear message and then they ignore it or, worse, go over to the other side. That makes me damn angry, and evidently a lot of others as well. But I try my best not to let that anger turn to hatred, because in the end that is counterproductive. You get burned up by hate to the point of not accomplishing anything (constructive).