Why do conservatives look for another Reagan?

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?

 

They are living in the past...:laugh:

 

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.

 

Because we want less government, lower taxes and more freedom.

 

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.

 

Being like Quayle is no small potatose...

Potatos...

Potatoes...

spuds.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

And I voted in it. :thumbs:

 

The same reason the liberals are always looking for the next John Kennedy.

Mike