Why do conservatives look for another Reagan?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by KenH, Feb 9, 2008.

  1. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    When I was a child and first started paying attention to politics about 20 years after President Franklin Roosevelt, objectively the greatest Democratic president in our history, had died, I don't recall hearing that the Democrats were searching fo the next FDR when choosing their party's nominee.

    Why do Republicans, 20 years after Ronald Reagan left office, keep searching for a another Reagan?
     
  2. tinytim

    tinytim
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    Good question...

    I asked the same thing yesterday after reading McCain's speech, and seeing all the Reagan references... .

    Why not try to be like Quayle?
     
  3. Martin

    Martin
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    They are living in the past...:laugh:
     
  4. NiteShift

    NiteShift
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,034
    Likes Received:
    0

    Democratic candidates for years, right up to the mid 1960's, billed themselves as New Deal Democrats when running for election.

    Look at the Democrats.org site. They feature "The Eleanor & Franklin Roosevelt Democratic Club" ..."founded in 1976 to further the principles of the Democratic Party and to elect its candidates in general elections."

    In February 2005, Senate Democrats gathered at the Franklin Roosevelt Memorial to invoke the image of FDR.

    Democrats conjure up Kennedy continually. Even the Kennedys themselves are now comparing Obama to JFK.
     
  5. leesw

    leesw
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2001
    Messages:
    196
    Likes Received:
    1
    Because we want less government, lower taxes and more freedom.
     
  6. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Because we're tired of the Clinton/Bush coalition selling us out to the highest bidder and think things would be different if another Reagan came on the scene. Non of the candidates aside from Ron Paul even comes close to being a reagan republican and the establishment simply does not want a limited government. The warfare/welfare state they've been building up serves them all too well to just give it up.
     
  7. rbell

    rbell
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Being like Quayle is no small potatose...

    Potatos...

    Potatoes...

    spuds.
     
  8. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,093
    Likes Received:
    218

    Im not too sure that Reagan would be a solid support of Ron Paul

    Salty
     
  9. Ivon Denosovich

    Ivon Denosovich
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2007
    Messages:
    1,276
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh, rbell, in all fairness, unfairness is very funny. :)

    I don't see pubs search for the Reagan-esque candidate as problematic. I'd prefer they search for another Goldwater but that's probably asking too much.
     
  10. Ivon Denosovich

    Ivon Denosovich
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2007
    Messages:
    1,276
    Likes Received:
    0
    Human Events is confident Paul would be Reagan's choice:

    And pubs that take the position, "pffffttt-Reagan-didn't-have-to-deal-with-terrorists," forget about the USSR which not only hated us as much as bin Laden but had nukes to boot:

    (Bolding mine.) Reagan, unlike Bush, didn't have the luxury of being consumed with Arabian rednecks with homemade bottle rockets.
     
  11. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,093
    Likes Received:
    218
  12. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Probably not. But then again would that really matter? Far as I can tell Reagan was the face on tv but it was his "New World Order" vice president that made things happen. Legally or Ilegally (Iran/Contra). And yes I know about plausable deniability. All that means is being able to act outside the law with impunity.

    If Reagan was half the great american conservative everyone thinks he would have dumped George H. W. Bush the globalist in a New York minute because of his "anti-american" international elitist ideology. But he didn't.

    And Reagan took the credit for the "fall of the evil empire" even though it would have fallen under it's own weight without his involvement. It was already rotting from within and on it's very last leg when Reagan became POTUS. So he was a good actor and acted like it was all his doing the USSR nosedived into history. All fiction in reality.

    Ronald Reagan's advisors could never agree with Ron Paul's message of limited constitutional government just on the basis that they would stand to lose to much power and control over "we the people". So who would Ronald Reagan support today...Ron Paul or one of the international elitist's minions we get to "choose from" now? I doubt very much it would be Ron Paul.
     
    #12 poncho, Feb 9, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 9, 2008
  13. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
  14. D28guy

    D28guy
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2002
    Messages:
    2,713
    Likes Received:
    0
    The same reason the liberals are always looking for the next John Kennedy.

    Mike
     

Share This Page

Loading...