Originally Posted By mawnck Bruce Bartlett posts a laundry list of all the terrible things St. Reagan did that would make today's Republicans have a aneurysm. Some highlights: >>As a Hollywood actor, Reagan had been the head of a labor union, the Screen Actors Guild, and was proud of the higher pay and benefits he negotiated for his members. As president, he praised labor unions, saying, “Collective bargaining…has played a major role in America's economic miracle. Unions represent some of the freest institutions in this land. There are few finer examples of participatory democracy to be found anywhere.”<< >>In 1986, Reagan supported an immigration reform that gave amnesty to 3 million illegal aliens. During the 1984 election, Reagan said, “I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots and who have lived here even though sometime back they may have entered illegally.”<< <a href="http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2012/06/15/Why-Ronald-Reagan-Would-Not-Lead-Todays-GOP.aspx" target="_blank">http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/...GOP.aspx</a>
Originally Posted By ecdc Today's GOP and conservatives are completely disconnected from reality in this regard. Their vision of what American was, who Reagan was, and what our challenges are today, are rooted in myth and fantasy. It's why they're so angry at Obama and why they're so up in arms - if I believed what they did, I'd be terrified too. And this isn't silly posturing on my part, I'm happy to review the specifics, such as their failure to understand taxes, the place of religion in American politics, or even their modern raid on guns and ammo out of fear Obama would "ban" them.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones Candidates will campaign closer to their bases during election season, but will move closer to the center once they get into office. Obama did this. Romney would likely do this. Whatever differences they have during the campaign will be erased once either one gets into office (likely Obama).
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones On the other hand, Obama supporters could be hoping that a lame duck Obama is going to be more liberal than 1st term Obama. But it's a gamble.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I don't think #3 is correct. I said this on another thread, but here it is again. I worry that people who think Romney would govern as a moderate because he did so in MA overlook the fact that the guy is a phony with no core convictions other than helping the very rich. Other than that, he blows where the wind blows. In MA that was from the left, which blew him back to moderate positions (you pretty much CAN'T govern as a far-righty in MA). But if Romney is elected president, the prevailing winds would all be from the right. The far right would let him know in no uncertain terms that if he doesn't toe their line, they will run someone against him in the 2016 primaries. That's unusual, but they've gone so far right, I believe they'd do it - at least as a threat, that he would instantly buckle to. (Hell, people like Bob Bennett and Richard Lugar aren't even "conservative enough" for them.) So no one should believe, IMO, that Romney would be able to govern as a moderate.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones I don't disagree with that, but I think the same could be said about Obama, which plays into the whole "no difference between the two" angle. I want to believe that the political climate is ripe for a third party to break through, but I am not that delusional.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 How could the same be said for Obama? That makes no sense. There is no left-wing equivalent of the tea party that has the same level of clout within the Democratic party. There just isn't. And obviously, there is no threat of a primary challenge for Obama. This false equivalency we do often see, this "both parties are just two sides of the same coin..." sometimes if holds, but often (as here) it's just lazy thinking.
Originally Posted By tiggertoo <<Their vision of what American was, who Reagan was, and what our challenges are today, are rooted in myth and fantasy.>> No doubt. He has become a conservative folklore hero in the ilk of Pecos Bill or Paul Bunyan. Who cares about the truth when the fiction is so inspiring, right? Jeb Bush was right, if the real Reagan was up for the party nomination, this archetypical figure would have gone down like Huntsman, the politician probably most like unto Reagan in this go-round.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer The billionaires that are pumping money into the Romney campaign aren't doing it because they think that Romney has a spine, a strong sense of purpose, and a strong moderate streak. The GOP needs more Reagans and fewer Gingriches and Romneys.
Originally Posted By fkurucz ^^I was thinking that the GOP needs more Eisenhowers. St. Ronnie began a legacy of budget deficits.
