A Maryland GOPer criticizes the MD GOP, for good reason

[Statistikhengst]

You are so right. I also am pro-life, but I don't want abortion done away with because I believe in the case of risk to the life of the mother, incest and rape that the woman should have the right to choose whether or not they want to carry the child to birth.

Most states have strict laws regarding elective abortions, and I'm fine to confining elective abortions to the first tri-mester...after that, I am not for it.

I also am for the death penalty, especially when there is enough evidence and the crime is deserving of death. I am not against owning guns, but I don't believe citizens should be able to buy AR15s and other weapons that are only appropriate for war, just because they want to.

But, it seems that some on the right just categorize every Democrat as a left wing extremist, who supports all kinds of strange life styles, who want to ban all guns and want to support people that can work but choose not to. That's just plain idiotic.

It appears that you and I are the same type of pro-lifers and 2nd amendmenters.

Yes, the Right loves to cast us all as Shirley Chisolm Democrats, and most of us are not. Which is why, as long as the Right continues to stay in it's bubble, it will probably continue to lose elections. Reagan won big because he was able to prove himself with Democrats who voted on pocketbook issues. He did that because he did not demonize them, but rather, talked with them. I sometimes wonder if Ronald Reagan would even have a chance at the GOP nomination in a year like 2016, were he alive and in his prime right now.

I would again go back to the notion that you need to fundamentally determine what your positions are and let the discussion flow from there.

Had Reagan come out and spoken of cooperating with democrats, my guess is that he would have been seen as one type of politician and certainly not acceptable to a portion of the far right.

At the same time, if his principles were well known in advance (and proven) then the tactics probably might have received more leeway.

But anyone who says that "government is the problem" isn't going to immediately draw the ire of the far right.

Also recall that Reagan's post presidency approval has increases substantially. It was especially during his second term he took a lot of flack.

In this, I would also say that the far right and the far left were not as prominent in his day. They feed off of each other. I am not so sure Sam Numm (sp?), who I really liked, also would have survived.

Reagan was also a pragmatist and (like Gerald Ford), I suspect his approach would not be the same today as it was back then.

Now, for the purposes of discussion, do you think your statement applies at the local level (city council) ?

bolded 1: agree

bolded 2: would probably have to be seen on an indidivual basis. In local politics, people tend to know each other better - they live practically next to each other.

 

[Listening]

It appears that you and I are the same type of pro-lifers and 2nd amendmenters.

Yes, the Right loves to cast us all as Shirley Chisolm Democrats, and most of us are not. Which is why, as long as the Right continues to stay in it's bubble, it will probably continue to lose elections. Reagan won big because he was able to prove himself with Democrats who voted on pocketbook issues. He did that because he did not demonize them, but rather, talked with them. I sometimes wonder if Ronald Reagan would even have a chance at the GOP nomination in a year like 2016, were he alive and in his prime right now.

What would be your thoughts on Mitt Romney running against Ronald Reagan in 1980 given the environment of that day ?

 

[Statistikhengst]

It appears that you and I are the same type of pro-lifers and 2nd amendmenters.

Yes, the Right loves to cast us all as Shirley Chisolm Democrats, and most of us are not. Which is why, as long as the Right continues to stay in it's bubble, it will probably continue to lose elections. Reagan won big because he was able to prove himself with Democrats who voted on pocketbook issues. He did that because he did not demonize them, but rather, talked with them. I sometimes wonder if Ronald Reagan would even have a chance at the GOP nomination in a year like 2016, were he alive and in his prime right now.

What would be your thoughts on Mitt Romney running against Ronald Reagan in 1980 given the environment of that day ?

Depends. Had Romney already brought out his "Romneycare" before 1980, that would be one thing, if not, it would be another. My suspicion is that Reagan would have won no matter what, he had already been practicing for 12 years! Most don't know this, but Reagan won the California Republican primaries in 1968. Had Nixon been an embattled President in 1972 - say, for instance, had Watergate broken in 1971 instead of 1973, then I am quite sure that Reagan would have challenged him and probably won the GOP nomination, even in 1972. In 1976, it was dogfight enough.... but by 1980, Reagan was the prohibitive front runner.

 

[Listening]

It appears that you and I are the same type of pro-lifers and 2nd amendmenters.

Yes, the Right loves to cast us all as Shirley Chisolm Democrats, and most of us are not. Which is why, as long as the Right continues to stay in it's bubble, it will probably continue to lose elections. Reagan won big because he was able to prove himself with Democrats who voted on pocketbook issues. He did that because he did not demonize them, but rather, talked with them. I sometimes wonder if Ronald Reagan would even have a chance at the GOP nomination in a year like 2016, were he alive and in his prime right now.

What would be your thoughts on Mitt Romney running against Ronald Reagan in 1980 given the environment of that day ?

Depends. Had Romney already brought out his "Romneycare" before 1980, that would be one thing, if not, it would be another. My suspicion is that Reagan would have won no matter what, he had already been practicing for 12 years! Most don't know this, but Reagan won the California Republican primaries in 1968. Had Nixon been an embattled President in 1972 - say, for instance, had Watergate broken in 1971 instead of 1973, then I am quite sure that Reagan would have challenged him and probably won the GOP nomination, even in 1972. In 1976, it was dogfight enough.... but by 1980, Reagan was the prohibitive front runner.

My question was more in the context of inclusiveness. It seems that your first question had to do with the split in the party and the purists.

If Reagan did not exist, do you think Romney would have more favor with a greater number of republicans in 1980 ?

 

[Statistikhengst]

What would be your thoughts on Mitt Romney running against Ronald Reagan in 1980 given the environment of that day ?

Depends. Had Romney already brought out his "Romneycare" before 1980, that would be one thing, if not, it would be another. My suspicion is that Reagan would have won no matter what, he had already been practicing for 12 years! Most don't know this, but Reagan won the California Republican primaries in 1968. Had Nixon been an embattled President in 1972 - say, for instance, had Watergate broken in 1971 instead of 1973, then I am quite sure that Reagan would have challenged him and probably won the GOP nomination, even in 1972. In 1976, it was dogfight enough.... but by 1980, Reagan was the prohibitive front runner.

My question was more in the context of inclusiveness. It seems that your first question had to do with the split in the party and the purists.

If Reagan did not exist, do you think Romney would have more favor with a greater number of republicans in 1980 ?

Ahh, understand. Well, assuming Romney would be the age in 1980 that he was in 2008 or 2012, it is possible, but even with inclusivity, his stance on abortion, well, at least his first stance, would have hurt him.

And considering how tied in to the system the Bushes were through Prescott Bush and Richard Nixon, I assume that had Reagan not been, Bush Sr. would have likely stepped up to the plate and been nominated in 1980.