Moderates Bush, Christie Pulling Away in Polls

[nodoginnafight]

Republicans - don't screw this up. I am not looking forward to a Hillary Clinton administration. If you blow this - that is EXACTLY what we are looking at. Heck, we may be looking at that despite our best efforts - but a "let's jihad our own guy" campaign is a proven loser.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Obviously this is very early and a lot can happen, but there is a noticeable gap between the two front-runners and the rest of the field.

Are moderate Republicans really gaining back control of the party? Some other signs - like moderate Republicans blocking a couple of symbolic votes that the right wing took for granted as routine - seem to indicate they may. Or at least they are trying to.

The far right had hoped that the midterms would provide them with a mandate, but it appears the opposite has happened. Republicans won majorities, but it looks like it was moderate Republicans who won the mandate.

Will the far right get on board and contribute to governing and directing the country? Or will they continue to demand "my way or no way"? Does a mandate matter to them or is it all about obstructing anything that didn't come from them?

Moderates obviously have the numbers - and the mandate - but can they get all the votes they need?

not much unusual here... not yet. Moderate Republicans never lost total control of the party. Moderates have no spine. They fear primary contests

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Ronald Reagan - "an extremist" ??

For his time. Do you ever go back and listen to what conservatives and liberal and moderate Republicans said about him? He was looked at as a populist and a right winger

 

[Dad2three]

OK, uncensored - you are entitled to believe whatever you want - whether it's right or wrong.

Ronald Reagan got the first vote I ever cast in a presidential election. (and the second) I know what he did while in office - it was a moderate administration.

But you can't just talk away the facts. You gotta get 45% of the moderate vote.

(And you can make up all the fantasies you want about my party affiliation - I've voted for 4 republicans, two democrats, and two libertarians in the 8 presidential elections I've voted in)

The only party I ever joined was the GOP - but I bailed on them when they started trending stupid. I'll NEVER join any party again, but I'll vote for a Republican who isn't stupid.

I realize that the ThinkProgress history rewrite depends on recasting Reagan as more sympathetic to the radical left that now runs the nation. Notice the litany of lies that dumb2three recites, as talking points from the hate sites? There has been a concerted effort to recreate Reagan in Clinton image since his death.

IF you were old enough to vote in 1980, then you know damned well that Reagan was attacked in the media as radical right, even that idiot Bush spewed his "voodoo economics" shit to smear Reagan as too far right.

Despite dumb2three's litany of lies, Reagan CUT income tax, deeply. He promoted and instituted a move from the disastrous Keynesian idiocy that had left the nation stunned with 12 years of stagflation, leading to Carter's "misery index." America crawled out from under the bed and confronted the Soviets, despite open Soviet agents like Jim Wright holding positions of power in congress. Grenada was the first time in history that any nation that had been conquered by the Communists was freed. Despite the unconstitutional Boland Amendment, support of the anti-Communist forces in Nicaragua forced an election which saw the Soviet beachhead on the North American continent lost.

Lying about Reagan is the duty of every democrat, you need to repaint him as one of yours - but that is the furthest thing from the truth.

Reagan was very conservative.

"There has been a concerted effort to recreate Reagan in Clinton image since his death."


TO FUNNY BUBBA

The Whitewashing of Ronald Reagan

A Gallup poll taken in 1992 found that Ronald Reagan was the most unpopular living president apart from Nixon, and ranked even below Jimmy Carter; just 46 percent of Americans had a favorable view of Reagan while Carter was viewed favorably by 63 percent of Americans.

This was before the Hollywood-style re-write of Reagan’s presidency that created the fictional character portrayed during Reagan’s 100th birthday celebration. The campaign was led by Grover Norquist and his “Ronald Reagan Legacy Project,” along with corporate-funded propaganda mills like Heritage and American Enterprise Institute that underwrote hundreds of flattering books to create a mythic hero and perpetual tax-cutter. They singled out Reagan’s 1981 tax cut that lowered top marginal rates from 70% to 28% as the basis for the campaign, leaving out the inconvenient reality that he subsequently raised taxes eleven times, according to former Republican Senator Alan Simpson who “was there.”


Vox Verax The Whitewashing of Ronald Reagan


How Republicans created the myth of Ronald Reagan

With the Gipper's reputation flagging after Clinton, neoconservatives launched a stealthy campaign to remake him as a "great" president.

In a sense, some of the credit for triggering this may belong to those supposedly liberal editors at the New York Times, and their decision at the end of 1996 to publish that Arthur Schlesinger Jr. survey of the presidents. The below-average rating by the historians for Reagan, coming right on the heels of Clintons’ easy reelection victory, was a wake-up call for these people who came to Washington in the 1980s as the shock troops of a revolution and now saw everything slipping away

How Republicans created the myth of Ronald Reagan - Salon.com




"By the end of his term, 138 Reagan administration officials had been convicted, had been indicted, or had been the subject of official investigations for official misconduct and/or criminal violations. In terms of number of officials involved, the record of his administration was the worst ever."

List of Reagan administration convictions.

 

[Brain357]

Obviously this is very early and a lot can happen, but there is a noticeable gap between the two front-runners and the rest of the field.

Are moderate Republicans really gaining back control of the party? Some other signs - like moderate Republicans blocking a couple of symbolic votes that the right wing took for granted as routine - seem to indicate they may. Or at least they are trying to.

The far right had hoped that the midterms would provide them with a mandate, but it appears the opposite has happened. Republicans won majorities, but it looks like it was moderate Republicans who won the mandate.

Will the far right get on board and contribute to governing and directing the country? Or will they continue to demand "my way or no way"? Does a mandate matter to them or is it all about obstructing anything that didn't come from them?

Moderates obviously have the numbers - and the mandate - but can they get all the votes they need?

While I think they need to move more toward center. Bush? That guy would be a gift to the Dems.

Well the first bush was forgettable and the second a disaster. I won't vote for another one. And from those I know(many republican) they feel the same way.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Guys - you are basing "Reagan was VERY conservative" on what the far left said about him. That how they attacked him and tried to run against him.

I have posted the documentation of WHAT HE DID AS PRESIDENT. There is no question his administration was a moderate one. I lived the history - I don't HAVE to re-write it.

But if you'd rather base your opinion on what opponents said about him - rather than what he actually did as POTUS - knock yourself out.

Pretty funny that no matter what the record says, you just can't let go. This pathological need to desperately cling to an illusion.

Have fun with that.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Context of December 7-8 1987 Reagan Gorbachev Sign Arms Reduction Treaty

December 7-8, 1987: Reagan, Gorbachev Sign Arms Reduction Treaty

Conservative Opposition - Hardline conservatives protest Gorbachev’s visit to Washington, and the signing of the treaty, in the strongest possible terms. When Reagan suggests that Gorbachev address a joint session of Congress, Congressional Republicans, led by House member Dick Cheney (R-WY—see 1983), rebel. Cheney says: “Addressing a joint meeting of Congress is a high honor, one of the highest honors we can accord anyone. Given the fact of continuing Soviet aggression in Afghanistan, Soviet repression in Eastern Europe, and Soviet actions in Africa and Central America, it is totally inappropriate to confer this honor upon Gorbachev. He is an adversary, not an ally.”

Conservative Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Committee is more blunt in his assessment of the treaty agreement: “Reagan is a weakened president, weakened in spirit as well as in clout, and not in a position to make judgments about Gorbachev at this time.”

Conservative pundit William F. Buckley calls the treaty a “suicide pact.”

Fellow conservative pundit George Will calls Reagan “wildly wrong” in his dealings with the Soviets.

Conservatives gather to bemoan what they call “summit fever,” accusing Reagan of “appeasement” both of communists and of Congressional liberals, and protesting Reagan’s “cutting deals with the evil empire” (see March 8, 1983).

They mount a letter-writing campaign, generating some 300,000 letters, and launch a newspaper ad campaign that compares Reagan to former British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain. Senators Jesse Helms (R-NC) and Steven Symms (R-ID) try to undercut the treaty by attempting to add amendments that would make the treaty untenable; Helms will lead a filibuster against the treaty as well.

1988: Reagan Abandoned, Mocked by Hardline Conservatives

 

[Brain357]

Guys - you are basing "Reagan was VERY conservative" on what the far left said about him. That how they attacked him and tried to run against him.

I have posted the documentation of WHAT HE DID AS PRESIDENT. There is no question his administration was a moderate one. I lived the history - I don't HAVE to re-write it.

But if you'd rather base your opinion on what opponents said about him - rather than what he actually did as POTUS - knock yourself out.

Pretty funny that no matter what the record says, you just can't let go. This pathological need to desperately cling to an illusion.

Have fun with that.

Well Reagan sure did spend a lot.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Guys - you are basing "Reagan was VERY conservative" on what the far left said about him. That how they attacked him and tried to run against him.

I have posted the documentation of WHAT HE DID AS PRESIDENT. There is no question his administration was a moderate one. I lived the history - I don't HAVE to re-write it.

But if you'd rather base your opinion on what opponents said about him - rather than what he actually did as POTUS - knock yourself out.

Pretty funny that no matter what the record says, you just can't let go. This pathological need to desperately cling to an illusion.

Have fun with that.

After November 9, 1989: Conservatives Rewrite History to Cast Reagan as Victor over Soviet Union in Cold War

American conservatives, recently contemptuous of former President Ronald Reagan (see 1988), use the fall of the Berlin Wall (see November 9, 1989 and After) to resurrect the image of Reagan as the victorious Cold Warrior who triumphed over world communism.
Historical Revisionism - In doing so, they drastically revise history. In the revised version of events, Reagan was a staunch, never-wavering, ideologically hardline conservative who saw the Cold War as an ultimate battle between good (Western democracy) and evil (Soviet communism).

Context of After November 9 1989 Conservatives Rewrite History to Cast Reagan as Victor over Soviet Union in Cold War

 

[nodoginnafight]

Guys - you are basing "Reagan was VERY conservative" on what the far left said about him. That how they attacked him and tried to run against him.

I have posted the documentation of WHAT HE DID AS PRESIDENT. There is no question his administration was a moderate one. I lived the history - I don't HAVE to re-write it.

But if you'd rather base your opinion on what opponents said about him - rather than what he actually did as POTUS - knock yourself out.

Pretty funny that no matter what the record says, you just can't let go. This pathological need to desperately cling to an illusion.

Have fun with that.

Well Reagan sure did spend a lot.

I haven't seen a Republican or Democrat who has not during my lifetime.

 

[Brain357]

Guys - you are basing "Reagan was VERY conservative" on what the far left said about him. That how they attacked him and tried to run against him.

I have posted the documentation of WHAT HE DID AS PRESIDENT. There is no question his administration was a moderate one. I lived the history - I don't HAVE to re-write it.

But if you'd rather base your opinion on what opponents said about him - rather than what he actually did as POTUS - knock yourself out.

Pretty funny that no matter what the record says, you just can't let go. This pathological need to desperately cling to an illusion.

Have fun with that.

Well Reagan sure did spend a lot.

I haven't seen a Republican or Democrat who has not during my lifetime.

Clinton got to a balanced budget, then gave it to that bush guy. We see how that worked out.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Mitt Romney got a higher percentage of the conservative vote (82) than Reagan did in 1980 (73%)

So your poster mega-conservative candidate didn't do as well among conservatives as your "RINO" did.

 

[AceRothstein]

Obviously this is very early and a lot can happen, but there is a noticeable gap between the two front-runners and the rest of the field.

Are moderate Republicans really gaining back control of the party? Some other signs - like moderate Republicans blocking a couple of symbolic votes that the right wing took for granted as routine - seem to indicate they may. Or at least they are trying to.

The far right had hoped that the midterms would provide them with a mandate, but it appears the opposite has happened. Republicans won majorities, but it looks like it was moderate Republicans who won the mandate.

Will the far right get on board and contribute to governing and directing the country? Or will they continue to demand "my way or no way"? Does a mandate matter to them or is it all about obstructing anything that didn't come from them?

Moderates obviously have the numbers - and the mandate - but can they get all the votes they need?

While I think they need to move more toward center. Bush? That guy would be a gift to the Dems.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Could you explain how Bush is a gift to the Democrats?

I think because his last name is Bush. If Jeb had a different last name, he'd easily be the GOP favorite.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Obviously this is very early and a lot can happen, but there is a noticeable gap between the two front-runners and the rest of the field.

Are moderate Republicans really gaining back control of the party? Some other signs - like moderate Republicans blocking a couple of symbolic votes that the right wing took for granted as routine - seem to indicate they may. Or at least they are trying to.

The far right had hoped that the midterms would provide them with a mandate, but it appears the opposite has happened. Republicans won majorities, but it looks like it was moderate Republicans who won the mandate.

Will the far right get on board and contribute to governing and directing the country? Or will they continue to demand "my way or no way"? Does a mandate matter to them or is it all about obstructing anything that didn't come from them?

Moderates obviously have the numbers - and the mandate - but can they get all the votes they need?

While I think they need to move more toward center. Bush? That guy would be a gift to the Dems.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Could you explain how Bush is a gift to the Democrats?

I think because his last name is Bush. If Jeb had a different last name, he'd easily be the GOP favorite.

We will see what happens on that. But Hillary has some surname baggage as well so ....

 

[nodoginnafight]

IN 2012 Mitt Romney got 82% of the conservative vote and conservative voters made up 35% of the voters.

In 1980 Reagan got 73% of the conservative vote and conservative voters made up 28% of the electorate.

In 1984 Reagan got 82% of the conservative vote and conservatives made up 33% of the voters.

So even in his best showing among conservatives - the ideal, poster boy conservative candidate, maxed out at 82% of the conservative vote. Which is exactly what Romney got - but Romney actually got a slightly higher percentage of conservatives to the polls.

Which proves my point that the GOP has maxed out with the far right. It makes absolutely no sense to blow off moderate votes in order to chase more conservative votes.

 

[Brain357]

Obviously this is very early and a lot can happen, but there is a noticeable gap between the two front-runners and the rest of the field.

Are moderate Republicans really gaining back control of the party? Some other signs - like moderate Republicans blocking a couple of symbolic votes that the right wing took for granted as routine - seem to indicate they may. Or at least they are trying to.

The far right had hoped that the midterms would provide them with a mandate, but it appears the opposite has happened. Republicans won majorities, but it looks like it was moderate Republicans who won the mandate.

Will the far right get on board and contribute to governing and directing the country? Or will they continue to demand "my way or no way"? Does a mandate matter to them or is it all about obstructing anything that didn't come from them?

Moderates obviously have the numbers - and the mandate - but can they get all the votes they need?

While I think they need to move more toward center. Bush? That guy would be a gift to the Dems.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Could you explain how Bush is a gift to the Democrats?

I think because his last name is Bush. If Jeb had a different last name, he'd easily be the GOP favorite.

We will see what happens on that. But Hillary has some surname baggage as well so ....

You'd have to be pretty crazy to think the Clinton years weren't way better than the bush years.... Great economy, no wars, working toward balanced budget...

 

[Iceweasel]

Guys - you are basing "Reagan was VERY conservative" on what the far left said about him. That how they attacked him and tried to run against him.

I have posted the documentation of WHAT HE DID AS PRESIDENT. There is no question his administration was a moderate one. I lived the history - I don't HAVE to re-write it.

But if you'd rather base your opinion on what opponents said about him - rather than what he actually did as POTUS - knock yourself out.

Pretty funny that no matter what the record says, you just can't let go. This pathological need to desperately cling to an illusion.

Have fun with that.

Well Reagan sure did spend a lot.

I haven't seen a Republican or Democrat who has not during my lifetime.

Clinton got to a balanced budget, then gave it to that bush guy. We see how that worked out.

Republicans pushed it and billy caved (finally) wanting to be popular. He saw what people wanted and went with it, to his credit. The current occupant is much more of a liberal, being arrogant and condescending he doesn't care what America wants, he knows best.

 

[Brain357]

Guys - you are basing "Reagan was VERY conservative" on what the far left said about him. That how they attacked him and tried to run against him.

I have posted the documentation of WHAT HE DID AS PRESIDENT. There is no question his administration was a moderate one. I lived the history - I don't HAVE to re-write it.

But if you'd rather base your opinion on what opponents said about him - rather than what he actually did as POTUS - knock yourself out.

Pretty funny that no matter what the record says, you just can't let go. This pathological need to desperately cling to an illusion.

Have fun with that.

Well Reagan sure did spend a lot.

I haven't seen a Republican or Democrat who has not during my lifetime.

Clinton got to a balanced budget, then gave it to that bush guy. We see how that worked out.

Republicans pushed it and billy caved (finally) wanting to be popular. He saw what people wanted and went with it, to his credit. The current occupant is much more of a liberal, being arrogant and condescending he doesn't care what America wants, he knows best.

You won't get any argument from me that Clinton was better than current guy....

 

[HenryBHough]

[
You won't get any argument from me that Clinton was better than current guy....

Best illustration I've ever heard of the term "damning by faint praise"!

 

[Judicial review]

None of them will win. I know who will, though, and he hasn't entered yet.