« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

Adding to my Reagan Maxims: My Take on “Reagan Couldn’t Win Today”

I have not had a chance to write about the Jeb Bush remarks on Ronald Reagan, but I figure I ought to.

Full disclosure: I know many of you disagree with me, but I privately and publicly urged Jeb Bush to run for President this year. On most issues, he and I are of like mind and I think he was a tremendously good Governor of Florida. I would have preferred him to his brother from 2001 to 2009. I’d have preferred him to Mitt Romney. I’d most assuredly prefer him to Barack Obama. And I think he is right on immigration.

Nonetheless, I have a Reagan Maxim. Anyone who references Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment is probably a squishy Republican who cannot win a primary should any conservative dare discuss his record. The 11th Commandment has become a defense for squishes trying to claim some mantle of Reagan when their record is anything but Reagan like.

Now I must add a new maxim.

Anyone who says Ronald Reagan could not get the Republican nomination in today’s Republican Party most likely would not have voted for Ronald Reagan in the Republican primaries of 1980. That includes Jeb Bush. I think we can, however, all agree that he is right about his dad who couldn’t even win in 1980 and only won in 1988 by claiming the heir of the Reagan legacy as a third term proxy for Reagan only to be thrown out of office after everyone realized they read a lie from his lips.

The fact is, George W. Bush, John McCain, and Mitt Romney all had records to the left of Ronald Reagan on a host of issues and were still the party’s nominees. Of the three of them, only John McCain supported Ronald Reagan in 1980.

In fact, this is a nonsensical game because Ronald Reagan could not even be a Presidential contender now. California has drifted so far left that Reagan could never get elected Governor there. Meanwhile, in the real world, Joe Lieberman is too conservative for the Democrats and more Democrats have become Republicans in the past twenty years than the opposite.

What this is really about is quite simple.

Left of center moderates make up the majority of focus in the media, which leans left and thinks most Americans do too despite every poll suggesting we are a center-right nation and Fox News eating every other network’s lunch.

When a politician drifts left, he claims Ronald Reagan could not get the GOP nomination in today’s climate because the politician himself no longer thinks he can. And politicians and their egos, like journalists and their egos, cannot handle rejection well. So they’d rather claim Reagan was rejected rather than they themselves were rejected. And they sure as hell would never want to admit they’ve evolved because flip-flopping is a political sin in America. Therefore, it’s not them, it’s the party that has evolved. In essence, it is immaturity among adults unwilling to admit they have changed.

The media laps it up because the media, despite plummeting readers and viewers of traditional media, still cannot except that they too are being rejected because their world view is so out of touch with the average American.

Frankly, as much as I adore Jeb Bush, I think he’s had a bit of a personal self pity-party now realizing he probably could have sewn up the nomination and, because he sat on the sidelines, he’s now probably done with politics at that level and must transition to the role of “elder stateman,” which is diplomatic-ese for put out to pasture. Instead of choosing to engage the party, he’d rather blame it than himself.

The media loves these sorts of things. Yesterday, I had to discuss this on Erin Burnett’s show on CNN. Just out of curiosity, I went on Nexis to see how many “death of the Democratic Party” stories there were compared to “death of the Republican Party” stories there were in the past 15 years. It’s not even close. From CNN to other networks, there is a rather ridiculous obsession with predicting the end of the GOP at the hands of extremists.

Meanwhile, the GOP made the biggest local, county, state, and federal gains of any party since the late 1800′s and the Democrats are having a very public crack up, losing Appalachia, the South, the Rust Belt, and seeing the GOP make local gains in New England, which the media talking heads routinely assure us the GOP could never win. As Sean Trende noted recently, Democrat gains out west will take up to 30 years to make up their losses in Appalachia.

But, it’s okay. Ronald Reagan could never win the Democrats’ nomination. Just like Joe Lieberman and Bob Casey, Sr. Or something like that.

By the way, on Jeb Bush’s point, echoed by Erin Burnett and David Frum and John Avlon last night on CNN about the extremes getting so much attention — though most of the focus is on the right because of how successful it has been in the past decade — there’s a point everyone seems to miss.

We are a 50-50 nation. When the nation is at 50-50, the voices on each side grow louder because only a few votes need drift across the center to side with the other side on issues. Consequently, both left and right must be loud and engaged to hold their own in a near evenly divided nation. Once the nation decides to hand a clear and sizable majority to one side, we’ll suddenly stop noticing it as much. But there’s an additional point.

Many of the very same people who hope someone mature and adult rises from the fray in the 50-50 nation are rooting for the smallest minority in the country — the true centrist independent who really stands for nothing and everything at the same time. People advocating for that really are the political fringe and they do not see it. But hey, they can get on TV and lament right-wing extremism. And more often than not, these are left-wingers who want the centrist-independent to stand for nothing and everything with them against the right.

COMMENTS

  • ru4fred

    He would have used the same advisors as his brother and his father, if any are still alive, used. He would have been another Bush disaster for the GOP.

    Reagan would be a tea party favorite.

  • ru4fred

    He would have used the same advisors as his brother and his father, if any are still alive, used. He would have been another Bush disaster for the GOP.

    Reagan would be a tea party favorite.

  • pantera1968

    I always think about this in relation to taxes and spending. I think that when people on the left say that Reagan wouldn’t be nominated today (which is of course a load of bull) what they are pointing to is the fact that most conservatives refuse to accept ANY new taxes at this point.

    My issue with that, is that we have had 30 years of spending gone wild since Reagan was president. It is spending on a whole new level and that is what makes the comparison nonsensical to me.

    Honestly, at some point, if the budget is going to even approach being balanced I believe that tax increases will have to be a part of that BUT I am, personally, against ANY new taxes until SIGNIFICANT cuts in spending occur. I mean actual mathematical cuts – not decreases in projected increases.

    I’m guessing that if true spending cuts were put into place for several years that many conservatives would be willing to explore tax increases. For me personally, I’m so tired of the word games and math games our politicians play that I’m beginning to wonder if true spending cuts will ever happen. It all seems like a big shell game to me sometimes.

  • http://conservativemormonmom.blogspot.com ew88

    But I’m with ru4fred on this. Reagan is a tea party stud. Not Jeb Bush. Not that Romney is either, mind you, but you get the point. I’m not convinced that Romney is ‘establishment’ either though, since he supports the Ryan plan and true government spending cuts and keeps shocking the establishment with his boldness. Go Romney! Get Obama out of office!

  • kentucky

    Saying “Ronald Reagan could not get the Republican nomination” is another way of saying “Ronald Reagan was more liberal than Mitt Romney.” No one really believes that, and Erick hits the nail on the head by characterizing this as merely being a deflection of legitimate criticism.

    They were all ready for Republicans to move to the center while Democrats lurched leftward, placing the country on a European path of socialism. Instead, conservative states have been purged of squishy Senators and swing states like Pennsylvania and Wisconsin are electing people like Pat Toomey and Scott Walker.

    The country is growing far more conservative and it will soon be the Democrats who must move to the center or find themselves on the Endangered Species List. Beautiful.

  • tnguy

    …is a big government apologist and electing men like him is why Obama can blame republicans for a lot of the deficit problem, and at least be partially correct. But hey, Jeb did conserve Florida’s coastline from evil oil drillers.

    Disappointing that EE would be so easily snookered by JB. It’s been obvious what he is for a number of years. David Frum is exactly the sort that JB would be comfortable discussing Reagan with. Other than being a younger, more articulate, more charismatic version of his brother, I can’t imgaine JB having a lot of appeal for conservatives. But then I couldn’t have imagined republicans would nominate Mitt Romney, either.

    Conservatives need to draw a line in the sand and simply refuse to vote for non-conservatives. We dig our own grave a little deeper each time we do.

  • http://www.ArchitecturalShots.com mdyou

    …the Bushes are who they are. They are establishment GOP, and we have to rid the party of this way of thinking.

  • FMB501

    As a Florida resident, I too liked Jeb Bush. He was a good govenor and he would have made a much better President than his brother.

    I think Jeb was/is too tainted to have gotten the GOP nomination. But I’m at a loss as to why Jeb didn’t run against Bill Nelson. I think he would have won hands down.

    But back to Reagan. I think that he would have easily won the GOP nomination today. All of the candiates this year were flawed with weak messages or just didn’t have the star power to gain traction.

    Santorum could not stop talking about abortions, contraception, and social issues when the people were demanding solutions to the economy.

    Rick Perry pulled out his six shooter and emptied them into both feet.

    Ron Paul was like Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde: sane and reasonable on half the issues and insane and unreasonable on the other half.

    At first, Newt seemed like a weather vane in a political tornado as he changed positions daily, but then reverted to endless whining as he fell behind.

    I give credit to Romney, about whom I still have serious reservations, he has stayed on message, he has reacted to the changing situations quickly, his compaign has shown flexibility, and he as stayed calm under fire.

    But Reagan had something that no GOP candidate has had since he left office: a believable message of a better future for everyone with the perfect balance of simplicity, substance, and humor.

    He had a conservative message that appealed to a broad base. The Reagan Democrats stepped forward to support him.

    I still like to listen to his many superb speeches. Some of them historic in content and presentation. Who doesn’t remember the 1987 Berlin speech when he said “Mr. Gorbechev, tear down this wall”?

    But my all time favorite was his 1964 “A Time for Choosing” speech in support of Goldwater / Miller.

    No candidate in either Party can deliver such a speech today, Everything in that speech is just as relevant today as they were in 1964. Listen to that speech and I defy you to tell me that Ronald Reagan would not be the GOP nominee today.

    Jeb is wrong. The people were looking for a Ronald Reagan this year, but we had to settle for Mitt Romney.

    Mitt should listen to those Reagan speeches.

  • tnfriendofcoal101368

    From EE: “Frankly, as much as I adore Jeb Bush, I think he?s had a bit of a personal self pity-party now realizing he probably could have sewn up the nomination and, because he sat on the sidelines, he?s now probably done with politics at that level and must transition to the role of ?elder stateman,? which is diplomatic-ese for put out to pasture. Instead of choosing to engage the party, he?d rather blame it than himself.”

  • infiltr8tr

    I love your site and the topics discussed here, but this is the same man who has a wife who – correct me if I’m wrong – actively supports the open borders crowd?
    I agree with your assertion that any Republican who throws out the “Reagan couldn’t get the nomination in the party today.” line is suspect, especially him. After all, Ronnie was a two-termer and the 2nd was a landslide, his father on the other hand, couldn’t close the deal the 2nd time around. I remember that campaign well and to myself and a large number of friends and family, his father looked as though he couldn’t care less if he won or not.

  • tngal

    I would say we’re related except my hubby is a blue-dog dem. You and I, however, have like-minded thoughts. Jeb is inch-worming himself to the left ,as did his brother before him. As did did McCain. And on and on. No more slogging to the left its time to plant the flag…to the right.

    There will be casualties in this fight.

  • http://www4.webng.com/rickbull/lostlucky/ rickbull

    Jeb’s daddy thinks Jeb is wrong, too.

  • mikeymike143

    and w would never have won the republican primary if the tea party would have been around in the year 2000.

    and there was no way jeb bush was winning the republican primary. LOL. he would have bombed worse than perry.

  • tngal

    I lift my glass of…ok, I’m not exactly sure of what it is I mixed together, but whatever— I raise it to you. Nice comeback. GW had several good points, but his daddy was better.

  • flguy

    This is just my opinion on the matter, but I don’t see Jeb as wanting to be Senator because it’s a very different area of government. Representing Florida as one among many legislators (i.e. Lawmakers) isn’t the same as governing, executive decision making. Very different jobs, very different people for them usually. That’s probably why most Senators and Reps never get elected president (or shouldn’t, in Obama’s case).

  • http://www4.webng.com/rickbull/lostlucky/ rickbull

    Thanks. And I raise my diet cola in a toast to GHW Bush, and to you.

  • checkmate2012

    in the right direction. His speech about O is about big gov’t and he is for the private sector draws a distinct line. His speeches are getting bolder and better, but no one will ever compete with Reagan IMO but can only draw inspiration.

  • gekster

    He can see where the advantage is, and I think he understands that the liberalism of Barack has failled, and where the conservatism of Reagan had won.
    As Governor of MA, he saw what the people of that state wanted,
    and gave it to them.
    I think now he sees what the Republican voters want, as opposed to what the politicians want, and will tack toward them.
    It does look like he is doing just that.
    I think he knows that it is the voters, not the politicians, who vote.

  • katem

    Reagan was a principled conservative who knew that governing requires working with the opposition party. The Reaganesque candidate in the 2012 GOP primary was Jon Huntsman. That didn’t come through to enough voters in the early primary states, unfortunately.

  • checkmate2012

    in that he knows what’s right, will surround himself with the right people that he can trust, will analyze the facts and make sound decisions. Call it like it is, tacking, but he’s running a very smart campaign and only taking risks when needed. Politician or a smart human? I say both.

    I will be glad and proud to have Ward Cleaver, i.e. Mitt Romney in office vs. a crook.

  • katem

    may have been in February/March of this year, when Romney was in real danger of losing Michigan and a few other states to Santorum. The calls for Jeb or another candidate to enter the race were getting louder and louder. That was probably his window of opportunity. Otherwise, I suspect that the Bush “dynasty” issue will be a big hurdle for Jeb to overcome in the future (and probably would have been this time too if he had gotten into the race in 2011). It might have been less of an issue if Jeb joined the race at the urging of the party leadership in the spring.

  • checkmate2012

    dynasty? Trust me, and please don’t throw tomatoes, I have a very high regard for GWB for many reasons, mostly for his love of country, but think Jeb had no chance this year or ever. Talk about handing O a win!

    I personally will always thank them both for serving honorably and for GW bringing dignity back to the Office, but please can we move on?

  • Joliphant

    I’d have to suggest anyone foolish enough to think that take a gander at the 1980 and 1984 debates. When he didn’t just win the debates, he destroyed Jimmy Crater “the smartest president ever”* and Walter Mondale. It was so bad the news media couldn’t even achieve spin on the issue.

    It was for good reasons Reagan was known as the great communicator. He was able to destroy the message of his opponents one on one, and he was able to humble a press that was a notch away from foaming at the mouth.

    *Washington, Madison, Jefferson,Lincoln, Theodore Rosevelt, Eisenhower to name a few might take umbrage at the comparison, of course the media operates on the idea that if they were good presidents you can’t count them as republicans.

  • larenzo

    I guess I have not been paying as close attention as I should have. I never understood that Erick is an amnesty supporter till now. No I preferr Romney to Jeb any day. I believe people will be very suprised by Mitt.

  • kingfish2

    The only mistake Reagan, Bush, McCain and Gingrich ever made was thinking left way thinking is willing to compromise ANYTHING. They all made the same mistake the left NEVER MAKES, giving in to the other side. Until the right stands it’s ground there will never be ANY CHANGE worth changing for. GOOD can never reach across the table and shake hands with WRONG

  • gettingsl

    well said and absolutely right on point, particularly your last 3 sentences.

  • cwfoster

    said “What compromise has food with poison? In any compromise between good evil, it is only evil that can benefit.” and it has LONG been my observation that while the right throws ideas against the wall, and when they go sliding down, they try something else. But when the LEFT tries gun control, amnesty, or some other cockamamie thing, when it fails, they try it again the next year, and the next, and the next… until it not only passes, but eventually it comes around again! Case in point: reply to this post if you remember the compromise Reagan made to pass an amnesty bill to get the Democrats to support sealing the border as a follow on measure? Did that follow on measure EVER happen? Now “we have to do something about the MILLIONS of illegal immigrants who are already here before we can build a fence, dig a moat, what the hell ever and seal our borders! Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me! Has ANY SINGLE POLITICIAN brought this up since the amnesty issue was raised during the Bush administration? The leftmedias definition of an extremist is someone who wont abandon principles and cave at the first sign of opposition!

  • gwbramhall

    It was hard to follow what was EE’s point in this column,
    and it became worse when he wrote, “Reagan could
    not win the Democrat (?) nomination today”. I am tired
    of all this Republican the same as the Democrat stuff.
    If you cannot see the clear difference between the two
    and what their tendencies are, perhaps you should not
    be voting. The Democrats have drifted so far left that
    even Hillary Cllinton could not get their nomination. The
    Republicans have their warts to be sure, but most have their
    hearts and minds in the right place. Giving people the
    opportunity to advance their station in life rather than just
    making them feel comfortable where they are with onlly a
    pro sports contract to improve, is difference enough for me
    They prefer to smother their ideal target vote rwith government
    handouts, starving their initiative, (bankrupting the country) and
    leaving them with no chance to enjoy the American Dream
    and perhaps to become among the wealthy that our President
    hates, but enjoys their generous support. Today’s Democrat party
    fears they’ll lose a constituent if he succeeds and rises up the
    financial ladder. The Republicans will be there to applaud their
    success and trust their success brings with it a perspective that
    proves the Democrats’ worst fears.

  • houdini1984

    and wish conservatives would leave that rhetoric to the leftists. Yes, Bush had his weaknesses and made his share of mistakes. Still, his Presidency was one of real consequence, and should be defended for its successes.

    It is sad to see conservatives so eager to accept the arguments of the Left. It is even sadder to see them cannibalizing a good man who patriotically tried to do what he thought was right in defense of this nation.

    Where are the Republicans pointing out that we had more than five years of uninterrupted growth during Bush’s eight years – despite his two terms having been sandwiched between two economic disruptions (dotcom bubble collapse & housing/financial market collapse) and 9/11?

    Where are the Republicans celebrating the fact that we finally had a President who aggressively took the war to Muslim extremists – after decades of unanswered attacks?

    Bush was many things: slow to communicate his intentions and awkward when he eventually did. He was never, however, a disaster. That definition would be best reserved for the current occupant of the White House.

  • brojohn2

    All the same thing, evil is as evil does and these people are pure evil. From the president down, they want only one thing, power and that absolute. We MUST win this election, and we must do so BIG!

    Forget the idiot discussions about Reagan, he was a great president and a great man, he is gone to a far better place, but he is gone. We have a candidate for President who will I believe move our country back toward the right, we the conservatives MUST support him and give him every opportunity to become POTUS. If we don’t, we will have 4 more years or more of Socialists and Communists who call themselves Democrats. I fully expect our present occupant in the White House to attempt a Hugo Chavez type take over. PLEASE stop the idiocy of who is or is not Reagan, there are NO Reagans out there. Support Romney or get off the bus.

  • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

    Take another look. EE is taking Jeb Bush to task for saying Reagan couldn’t win the GOP nomination today, and he explains why as well.

  • ihateliberals

    The only reason Bush was elected in the first place is that Republicans made the very HUGE mistake of thinking this Liberal Republican was like Ronald Reagan. The entire Bush family is far left of anything resembling a Conservative. The only reason GW got elected n 2000 is because people knew what a loser Al Gore was. The GOP for some dumb reason after GHW Bush lost to Clinton tht eeryone wanted a Moderate Republican. The GOP moved to the left and nominated nothing but nosers ever since. Bob Dole, GW Bush, John McCain and now Mitt Romney. IF Romney should win it will only be because the pubic is full up with socialist Obama. It won’t be because they believe in Romney. I wil support Romney to the hilt but he would not have even been my 29th choice for a nominee. Since he is though my goal is to defeat Obama.

    We use to call then RINO’s but as time goes on it is become more and more evident that they are Left-Wing Republicans or Liberal Republicans. Grant you they are not even a tenth of a percent as bad as Democratic Liberals but there is not such thing as a good Liberal. If you are defending the Bush family then you too must be a Left-Wing Republican.

  • ihateliberals

    I like you and your defending the conservtives of America but supporting anyone from the Bush family for anything more than Dog catcher is a scary thing. The Bush Family has done more single handily to destroy the GOP than anyone since it’s inception in 1854. The Bush family is what has given credence to the likes of Mitch McConnell, John McCain and John Boehner. These are some ot hte worst examples of Republicans I could think of right off the top of my head. There are many many more and the left has figured out the way to defeat Conservatism is to infiltrate the GOP with moderates and left thinking Republicans. AZ was such a disappointment to me that they sent tht loser ojhn McCain back to DC. A really , Really bad Tea Party candidate is ten times better than a left-wing Republican like McCain.

    I have been a very hardcore Partisan Conservative Republican all my life. When i was only 15 i recognized the failures of the Democrats and what they stood for and went against a family that had been Democrats since the beginning of time it seems. I told my dad then that Democrats want everyone equal. He said “What is wrong with that”. I said “They want eveyone equally poor and dependent on them”. and That is when the fight started.

    The only time that the Bush family, McCain, McConnell, Boehner etc and including Democrats is when it is election time. the problem isn’t their lying about it, it is an electorate that believes them and elects them.

    I have been against Mitt Romney from the very beginning. He is a left-wing Republican. he is now the unfortunate nominee of the Party and in order to over throw Obama i must now support nim and I do 100%. I am a Mormon too but I don’t like Romney because his political views don’t match most Mormons who are conservatives. i do support Romney now because i do know he is honest and a good decent person. he would be a rarity in the White House if Elected. he claims to be conservative now and I hope he stands by that when elected. My fear is tht he wil not repeal Obamacare because he was the original architect of it to start with. God be willing Romney will win the election November 6th and overthrow this Muslim, Socialist pig Obama out the door.

  • Seedyrom

    could not get elected today nor could Hillary. The media have manufactured the Reagan couldn’t story for month so now Jeb Bush conveys it and his words have no weight despite the fact I’d vote for him.

    Those who disagree should agree the Clinton’s are too right for today’s far left democrats. Take away age and Hillary is still seen as wallstreet friendly, corporate loving and she called for the Iraq War>>>>>strike 3 with today’s moon-batology. Not to mention, big oil, big pharma and today’s moon bats don’t won’t to return the the Clinton era, even seen them say it from time to time.

    So its not really a wake up call let alone anything as bad as Bill Clinton, Gov. Ed Rendell or Mayor Cory Booker’s truthful statements. Notice how Rendell and Car Tsar Steve Rattner have not been chastised by the Thought Police.

  • Seedyrom

    Dubya supported in part to please dems and the gop but he’s no rino nor left wing republican. Left of centrist and right of McCain. I have to mention that 9/11 pushed the country to float the boat with waves of new money and debt spending. Big problem that aided the asset bubble but if dems had not obstructed banking reform in 2002, we may have delayed or possible overted the 2008 disaster . Bush’s biggest problem was he wouldn’t say no when Jim Demint and Tom Coburn called for killing the bills. Rest assured I’m centrist and as arrogant as anyone else here but I’d take 4 more years of Dubya over today’s choice.

  • ihateliberals

    The only reason he won in my wonderful Conservative state is that the population of minorities in Philly, Pittsburgh and Erie elected him. Those are the only blue areas of the state but that is the concentration of liberal minority democrats.

  • mizzou1776

    How you manage to “adore” Jeb Bush is a total mystery (I assume you are speaking politically?). JB did support Marco Rubio in Florida; and that’s great. He seemed to govern FLA in a conservative (small c) way. But the next wave should be a rebirth of Movement Conservatism out of the Spirit of ( failed) Bushism (small c conservatism). A lot of these policies would have been pursued by President Kemp in 1988. Unfortunately we got GHWB. Let’s be clear: the GOP is not going back! Send your money to DeMint’s Senate Conservative Fund or Club for Growth. That’s also the money that sustained Reagan. The idiotic meme about Reagan & today’s GOP is BS! In the UK the left consigned Thatcher to the ash heap & the Disgusting/Castrates who dominate the (former) Tory party remained quite. Reagan is ours. Let the increasingly clownish Nobama compare himself to R; even independants are not that dumb!

  • likeaglove

    Erick, I’m greatly disappointed with you on your immigration position. You are usually on the side of the average man on the street. Why would you sign on with All-amnesty-all-the-time Jeb on this?

    You should read the Ross Douthat article that was (miraculously) published in the NYT: http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/12/the-great-immigration-reform-mirage/

    This is an issue of elitists vs. non-elitists. Elites drive into their gated communities at night and emerge each morning to tell us commoners what we should accept and not accept — how we should live and not live. They remain untouched by the read, day-to-day consequences of what they propose. NOTHING infuriates me more. The elitists in the Democratic party do it and the elitists in the GOP do it. You usually are on the side of the average taxpayer. On this, you aren’t.

    We NEED to enforce our immigration laws. We already allow more LEGAL immigrants than any other country. We DON’T need to be forced to accept millions of poor, uneducated illegals. They (1) will always take more out of the system than they pay in taxes, and (2) they will be the death of the GOP because they will ALWAYS side with big government spending. Dubya lost me when he started pushing for amnesty. McCain was anathema to me for the same reason. Jeb will NEVER be acceptable to me on these grounds as well. His view is remarkably unfair to law-abiding Americans and LEGAL immigrants — and it is political suicide.

  • ihateliberals

    Romy is our nominee much against my better judgment but he is. We have to not elect Romney with the anticipation of him correcting teh economy or any thing like that but our primary and foremost goal is to stop Obama and the spread of Socialism and the outrageous spending spree of teh congress. At some point after we are able to stop the downhill movemof our country we can either get the message through to Romney that he has to become conservative or throw him out and elect someone who is. Without the return to the commonsense government style of Ronald Reagan and to restore True patriotism and love of the Constitution we wil not get out of our current predicament. electing Romney can stop Obama but Electing Romney will not fix Obama’s damage.

    We all know that Reagan is forever but his spirit lives on in many of our conservatives like myself. What we need is a real leader like Reagan that wil move the Party back to the right. It is only through this movement can we become color-blind and stop the enclavement of the populous through Government jobs and entilement programs. Liberals are the people that wanenslave people and unfortunately somewhere along the way the GOP lost sight of this fact and decided that the only way to get elected is to be a moderate or left-wing Republican.

  • rightlane1111

    I listened to some of what Mark Levin had to say about this. Jeb Bush has made me angry…because I believed what the good ole boy Republican Party was pushing…Jeb Bush is a Conservative.

    I was duped and I don’t like it…nor does anyone. I never liked Daddy Bush…and I am one of those people that helped get Clinton into office by voting for Perot. With all that talk about “globalism”….I didn’t want any part of it. It wasn’t the “read my lips” comment…it was this one world order crap….and you can see that the US is listening to the UN today. So…Daddy Bush…No. I also did not like how he interacted with Reagan during the debates and his insinuations about voodoo economics…as if Daddy Bush got an A on that.

    My rule…one time through the shooter…then no more. But…W was personable, I liked his wife. I didn’t see W as part of the Bush philosophy…and in many cases I liked Bush. I liked it when he told the world to go pound sand on cap and trade. I liked how he acted and supported our troops (something Obama completely neglects); I liked how he handled 9/11. What I did not like was this “big government” deal…like combining everything under Homeland Security so people could better communicate. WRONG…they have so many people running so many agencies…NOBODY knows what is going on. I also didn’t like it that he did not USE THE VETO PEN. I was in favor or his Supreme Court choices. I do believe that between Bush and our Congress under Hastert…we spent one big pile of money.

    Now for Jeb Bush to come out against Reagan…No….I won’t vote for you if he runs. I will vote for Romney because I DO NOT WANT OBAMA IN THERE FOR ANOTHER TERM. It is a referendum…not a choice as far as this election. The Bush’s have been involved in too much and it’s time we leave them alone.

    The only way for this thing to get turned around in this nation is to elect a PURE CONSERVATIVE. No more moderate garbage…if they can’t make up their minds…that tells you why we are where we are…because of people of like mind.

  • cbartlett

    There is no way the public (right, left or anything in between) was going to accept “oh no! ANOTHER Bush?” no matter what kind of conservative god he could pretend to be.

    rightlane – dittos – you stated the Bush 41 and 43 cases pretty well. (We Texans, of course, tend to give GW the benefit of the doubt sometimes – just because.) I have never cared GW’s big government, big spending, increase the size/scope of federal agencies philosophies, but, without a doubt, he and Barbara have SO much more class and character than the current occupants of the White House. I can’t imagine BHO handling 9/11 – makes me shudder to even think about it. I also really admire GW’s continuing support of the troops – much of it behind the scenes.

    But you are correct – too much Bush involvement – time to leave them to the history books and get on with finding a REAL conservative one of these days. We must support Romney for now because we cannot survive another 4 years of a Marxist. That doesn’t mean we don’t keep looking for a real conservative in the future.

  • tnfriendofcoal101368

    The Politico article only highlighted the difference in Romney (grown up) and Obama (arrested development). Did the Romney campaign say Daniels/Bush/Walker “are dead to us”. Nope, have we seen hostage videos, nope. Basically, Romney’s response was: “These men are all capable governors of their states,all are grown respectable men who agree with me on most issues; disagree on some. That is ok, I am not diminished by hearing their disagreements.” This is the response of a successful adult, comfortable in his own skin.

  • cbartlett

    “arrested development” – awesome – I’m borrowing that one!