Why Not Nominate the Next Reagan in 2012?

[CrimsonWhite]

You know, there was a time on this board that the man and his ideals was actually debated. One poster in this thread has given a political reason, based on campaign finance reform, for not supporting Fred Thompson. I disagree with him on it, but I can respect it. Everybody has essentially stooped to "he is a dumbass."

Fucking children.

BTW, Reagan failed to win the Party's nomination in 1976.

When a man makes as many weird and controversial comments as he has through the years, it is no surprise.

There is not much to debate about Ron Paul. Sure he says a few sane things, but so do the institutionalized.

Paul, is smart, intelligent, thoughtful and crazy as a loon.

--

Fuckin' Ron Paul and Fred Thompson threads...mixed uped. Nevertheless, two loons.

That could said about many on both sides of the aisles. Doesn't change anything that I said.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

You know, there was a time on this board that the man and his ideals was actually debated. One poster in this thread has given a political reason, based on campaign finance reform, for not supporting Fred Thompson. I disagree with him on it, but I can respect it. Everybody has essentially stooped to "he is a dumbass."

Fucking children.

BTW, Reagan failed to win the Party's nomination in 1976.

Regan lost and then had the first pac, started by Jesse Helms, running for him. Among others he had those crazy bastards up in NH, Meldrim Thompson and William Loeb, of the Manchester Union Leader, keeping his campaign alive.

Reagan was a fringe candidate who got lucky. Won't happen so easily again.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

You know, there was a time on this board that the man and his ideals was actually debated. One poster in this thread has given a political reason, based on campaign finance reform, for not supporting Fred Thompson. I disagree with him on it, but I can respect it. Everybody has essentially stooped to "he is a dumbass."

Fucking children.

BTW, Reagan failed to win the Party's nomination in 1976.

Regan lost and then had the first pac, started by Jesse Helms, running for him. Among others he had those crazy bastards up in NH, Meldrim Thompson and William Loeb, of the Manchester Union Leader, keeping his campaign alive.

Reagan was a fringe candidate who got lucky. Won't happen so easily again.

Prolly, but it makes for nice discussion. At least it would have until the thread devolved into monkeys flinging poo.

 

[Foxfyre]

You know, there was a time on this board that the man and his ideals was actually debated. One poster in this thread has given a political reason, based on campaign finance reform, for not supporting Fred Thompson. I disagree with him on it, but I can respect it. Everybody has essentially stooped to "he is a dumbass."

Fucking children.

BTW, Reagan failed to win the Party's nomination in 1976.

The "I don't know enough about him" doesn't count?

Must have missed that one. Sorry.

You're right though. Too many here are too young to remember Reagan and, because of their ideological conditioning (brainwashing?), they have been taught that Reagan was pretty much an evil, reckless zero.

The fact is, Reagan didn't make it on his first attempt to run for President. And there were strong misgivings about him when he made his second run. Those misgivings lasted right on into the campaign and through the election. He earned mixed reviews his first year or two and his enemies were really revved up to oppose him. He had a hostile press and Democrats giving hour-long special orders denouncing him and his policies on almost every single night on Cspan.

But he got around a Democrat controlled Congress to accomplish what he wanted to do by going straight to the people and making his case. And the people began to believe in him. And they began to believe themselves. And they began to feel good about America again. He took 49 of the 50 states in his 1884 re-election losing only in Mondale's Minnesota and he gave Mondale a good race there.

Contrast that to President Obama who has had huge majorities in both houses of Congress, the most favorable press of any President in history, and who makes his case on television at least several times a week. I doubt he could get elected dog catcher in most states if the election were held this month.

I think those who think they hate Reagan simply don't know much about him.

I am not sure Fred Thompson would be the one to take up that mantle though. Fred's time may have come and gone. But I bet there is somebody out there.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

You know, there was a time on this board that the man and his ideals was actually debated. One poster in this thread has given a political reason, based on campaign finance reform, for not supporting Fred Thompson. I disagree with him on it, but I can respect it. Everybody has essentially stooped to "he is a dumbass."

Fucking children.

BTW, Reagan failed to win the Party's nomination in 1976.

When a man makes as many weird and controversial comments as he has through the years, it is no surprise.

There is not much to debate about Ron Paul. Sure he says a few sane things, but so do the institutionalized.

Paul, is smart, intelligent, thoughtful and crazy as a loon.

--

Fuckin' Ron Paul and Fred Thompson threads...mixed uped. Nevertheless, two loons.

That could said about many on both sides of the aisles. Doesn't change anything that I said.

I'm tired. outta here. but before I go..you have a point here.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Pretty good piece. I would vote for him again.

If Republicans could, surely they would nominate Ronald Reagan for president in 2012. As it appears increasingly likely that Republicans -- conservative Republicans -- will control Congress after the 2012 elections, the only missing element in the political equation is a strong, conservative president like Ronald Reagan. In the mix of possible candidates for 2012, there are some potentially promising people.

Sarah Palin, rightly beloved by nearly all conservatives for her honesty, her advocacy, and her spunk, will figure into any list of candidates. Mitt Romney, who decently withdrew from the race before he lost in 2008, ought to be on the short list as well. Mike Huckabee will be some conservatives' favorite as well. Tim Pawlenty has decided that America really needs him to be president, and other Republicans will too.

With deepest respect for Sarah, none of these candidates is another Reagan. Many people have decided that we simply will not find another Reagan for a long time. I think otherwise. During the 2008 nomination season, I wrote several articles proposing a Republican not yet in the race as the Next Reagan. The stars were not aligned right then for him, but all that may be different in 2012. What do we want in our Next Reagan?

First, we want someone whose conservatism is beyond question -- someone who campaigned hard for Doug Hoffman, for example, even while the RNC was supporting the RINO. Second, we want someone of absolute integrity -- someone who is willing to stand all alone if he thinks he is right. Third, we want someone who does not "need" politics -- someone who was a great success in life before entering politics. Fourth, we want someone disassociated from the failures of Obama and also of Bush -- someone who grasped America's disgust with Washington long before the Beltway insiders. Fifth, we want a "grownup" -- someone who is in every sense of the word mature, sober, and serious. Sixth, we want a great communicator -- someone, like Reagan, who works well in every medium of communication. Seventh, we want someone who is universally perceived as a good man -- just like Reagan. One Republican in 2008 met all those criteria, and in 2012, he stands out at least as clearly as anyone as our Next Reagan: Fred Thompson.

American Thinker: Why Not Nominate the Next Reagan in 2012?

Here's where the Republican Party should be looking.
Young(meaning mid to late 40's) good looking conservative Hispanic male. By doing this they will capture the entire Hispanic vote as well as independants and the entire women's vote. Play the Democrat's card against them.

 

[Foxfyre]

You know, there was a time on this board that the man and his ideals was actually debated. One poster in this thread has given a political reason, based on campaign finance reform, for not supporting Fred Thompson. I disagree with him on it, but I can respect it. Everybody has essentially stooped to "he is a dumbass."

Fucking children.

BTW, Reagan failed to win the Party's nomination in 1976.

Regan lost and then had the first pac, started by Jesse Helms, running for him. Among others he had those crazy bastards up in NH, Meldrim Thompson and William Loeb, of the Manchester Union Leader, keeping his campaign alive.

Reagan was a fringe candidate who got lucky. Won't happen so easily again.

Reagan was no fringe candidate. He had been a moderately successful and fairly popular governor of California which is what, the seventh or eighth largest economy in the world if it was a country? But he did have enough enemies and there were enough concerns about him that Carter would have probably beaten him except that he was....well....Carter. Some think the GOP could have run a chimpanzee and beaten Carter that year. (Some think they did.)

If the GOP latches on to somebody with the credentials, vision, and communications skills of a Reagan, even if like Reagan he brings along a few quirks and foibles, he will be running against Obama.

Unless Obama pulls off some kind of miracle between now and November 2012, we are likely to see the same sort of scenario as we did in 1980.

But I do hope we go for a Reaganesque replacement. As Beck said at CPAC, it isn't enough to just not suck as bad as the other side sucks.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Pretty good piece. I would vote for him again.

If Republicans could, surely they would nominate Ronald Reagan for president in 2012. As it appears increasingly likely that Republicans -- conservative Republicans -- will control Congress after the 2012 elections, the only missing element in the political equation is a strong, conservative president like Ronald Reagan. In the mix of possible candidates for 2012, there are some potentially promising people.

Sarah Palin, rightly beloved by nearly all conservatives for her honesty, her advocacy, and her spunk, will figure into any list of candidates. Mitt Romney, who decently withdrew from the race before he lost in 2008, ought to be on the short list as well. Mike Huckabee will be some conservatives' favorite as well. Tim Pawlenty has decided that America really needs him to be president, and other Republicans will too.

With deepest respect for Sarah, none of these candidates is another Reagan. Many people have decided that we simply will not find another Reagan for a long time. I think otherwise. During the 2008 nomination season, I wrote several articles proposing a Republican not yet in the race as the Next Reagan. The stars were not aligned right then for him, but all that may be different in 2012. What do we want in our Next Reagan?

First, we want someone whose conservatism is beyond question -- someone who campaigned hard for Doug Hoffman, for example, even while the RNC was supporting the RINO. Second, we want someone of absolute integrity -- someone who is willing to stand all alone if he thinks he is right. Third, we want someone who does not "need" politics -- someone who was a great success in life before entering politics. Fourth, we want someone disassociated from the failures of Obama and also of Bush -- someone who grasped America's disgust with Washington long before the Beltway insiders. Fifth, we want a "grownup" -- someone who is in every sense of the word mature, sober, and serious. Sixth, we want a great communicator -- someone, like Reagan, who works well in every medium of communication. Seventh, we want someone who is universally perceived as a good man -- just like Reagan. One Republican in 2008 met all those criteria, and in 2012, he stands out at least as clearly as anyone as our Next Reagan: Fred Thompson.

American Thinker: Why Not Nominate the Next Reagan in 2012?

Here's where the Republican Party should be looking.
Young(meaning mid to late 40's) good looking conservative Hispanic male. By doing this they will capture the entire Hispanic vote as well as independants and the entire women's vote. Play the Democrat's card against them.

So style over substance? No thanks. That's what got us into 8 years of President Bush.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Pretty good piece. I would vote for him again.

Here's where the Republican Party should be looking.
Young(meaning mid to late 40's) good looking conservative Hispanic male. By doing this they will capture the entire Hispanic vote as well as independants and the entire women's vote. Play the Democrat's card against them.

So style over substance? No thanks. That's what got us into 8 years of President Bush.

Look...no one cares about politics when they choose a President...if they did Perot would have become President.

The only thing people care about is looks, style and popularity.....welcome to baby boomer highschool.

 

[MarcATL]

Somebody actually said that Hollywood reject Thomas was a..."class act."

ROTFLMWIAO!!!

Too funny!

*wipes tears from eyes*

 

[Mr. Peepers]

UGH! No way. One of the worst presidents ever and started the downward spiral of this country to be continued by the two shrubs. Also a war criminal.

 

[SFC Ollie]

UGH! No way. One of the worst presidents ever and started the downward spiral of this country to be continued by the two shrubs. Also a war criminal.

You need to back up one president. If not for Carters policies we wouldn't have half the problems we have today.

 

[uscitizen]

UGH! No way. One of the worst presidents ever and started the downward spiral of this country to be continued by the two shrubs. Also a war criminal.

You need to back up one president. If not for Carters policies we wouldn't have half the problems we have today.

specifics please?

 

[SFC Ollie]

UGH! No way. One of the worst presidents ever and started the downward spiral of this country to be continued by the two shrubs. Also a war criminal.

You need to back up one president. If not for Carters policies we wouldn't have half the problems we have today.

specifics please?

Start with Carters refusal to assist the Shah and allowing Muslim extremists to take over Iran and move forward from there.

 

[Foxfyre]

Here's where the Republican Party should be looking.
Young(meaning mid to late 40's) good looking conservative Hispanic male. By doing this they will capture the entire Hispanic vote as well as independants and the entire women's vote. Play the Democrat's card against them.

So style over substance? No thanks. That's what got us into 8 years of President Bush.

Look...no one cares about politics when they choose a President...if they did Perot would have become President.

The only thing people care about is looks, style and popularity.....welcome to baby boomer highschool.

Well it would be interesting to look at all the dynamics re the Perot run for the presidency, but I honestly believe that he might have won a plurality of the vote if he hadn't freaked out just before the election. And that made a lot of us who really liked him really suspicious when he then got back in. Evenso, he got 17% of the vote while Bill Clinton, who won, got I think 43% and Bush 41 38%.

How much differently would that have gone if Perot hadn't wigged out and make himself look like an absolute lunatic?

By his second run in 1996, too many distrusted Perot for him to be viable. It sure wasn't that Bill Clinton was all that revered. But he looked better than somebody perceived to be looney tunes.

If the Republicans had run somebody fresh, engaging, and with the right message in 1996, they could have won. But they ran Bob Dole, who, while wonderfully qualified, just didn't play well on television. Perot did. Clinton still didn't get a majority in that election either, but with Dole and Perot splitting the conservative/moderate vote, he won handily.

And that is our danger in this election. If we find another Perot who shoots himself in the foot at an inopportune time, and the GOP runs their typical (at least lately) lackluster, uninspiring candidate, Obama will be re-elected and the Democrats will likely hold power as far as the eye can see.

And many of us think our Republic as we have known it could very well not survive that.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Start with Carters refusal to assist the Shah and allowing Muslim extremists to take over Iran and move forward from there.

You mean after Iran democratically and freely voted in their leader and we intervened (again)? We were supposed to "do something" about that? Oh yeah, and we did. We had a hand in toppling the democratically elected leader to reinstate our oil puppet, the Shah. That pissed off the Iranian people. Would that have pissed you off? If some country who wanted something that you own and wanted to take it from you, came in and assisted in overthrowing your democratically elected leader in order to install someone who would cave to their "interests"? Can you look at it from that angle? Oh wait, that is exactly what corporations are doing to us now...

"In 1953, the CIA staged "Operation Ajax," which unseated a duly elected prime minister, Mohammed Mossadegh, and reinstated Mohammed Reza Pahlavi as Iran's traditional and ancestral shah (monarch). The agreement stipulated that, in exchange for military and economic aid to Iran, there would a continuous supply of oil to the U.S.

Pahlavi, however, made some bad decisions. In the early 1960s, he promised his people increased personal freedoms and other social reforms. That didn't happen.

The shah's wealth grew, and he succumbed to the temptations of a luxurious western lifestyle, which angered the Iranian people, especially the religious right wing. The clergy began to preach long and loud against the shah and his queen, which stirred the masses to revolt. The shah was forced to abdicate the throne again and leave the country in January 1979."

Iran Hostage Crisis

 

[SFC Ollie]

Start with Carters refusal to assist the Shah and allowing Muslim extremists to take over Iran and move forward from there.

You mean after Iran democratically and freely voted in their leader and we intervened (again)? We were supposed to "do something" about that? Oh yeah, and we did. We had a hand in toppling the democratically elected leader to reinstate our oil puppet, the Shah. That pissed off the Iranian people. Would that have pissed you off? If some country who wanted something that you own and wanted to take it from you, came in and assisted in overthrowing your democratically elected leader in order to install someone who would cave to their "interests"? Can you look at it from that angle? Oh wait, that is exactly what corporations are doing to us now...

"In 1953, the CIA staged "Operation Ajax," which unseated a duly elected prime minister, Mohammed Mossadegh, and reinstated Mohammed Reza Pahlavi as Iran's traditional and ancestral shah (monarch). The agreement stipulated that, in exchange for military and economic aid to Iran, there would a continuous supply of oil to the U.S.

Pahlavi, however, made some bad decisions. In the early 1960s, he promised his people increased personal freedoms and other social reforms. That didn't happen.

The shah's wealth grew, and he succumbed to the temptations of a luxurious western lifestyle, which angered the Iranian people, especially the religious right wing. The clergy began to preach long and loud against the shah and his queen, which stirred the masses to revolt. The shah was forced to abdicate the throne again and leave the country in January 1979."

Iran Hostage Crisis

I don't need a history lesson, I know that we set up the Shah, I know he was a real bastard also. But better that devil than the one we have now.
In the 60's Egypt executed a Muslim extremist (whose name i forget at the moment) and he taught that Muslims needed to take over a country and set up a religious state. Egypt took him out probably in part because of these beliefs. However the takeover in Iran was by people following his teachings. We see where this has led.......

 

[JakeStarkey]

The last thing the GOP needs is the far right in charge of the party again. Mitt Romney would mitigate that nonsense, put a real business sense in the WH, and have no problem in backing up our allies, particularly Israel.

 

[Sinatra]

Well said.

The "I don't know enough about him" doesn't count?

Must have missed that one. Sorry.

You're right though. Too many here are too young to remember Reagan and, because of their ideological conditioning (brainwashing?), they have been taught that Reagan was pretty much an evil, reckless zero.

The fact is, Reagan didn't make it on his first attempt to run for President. And there were strong misgivings about him when he made his second run. Those misgivings lasted right on into the campaign and through the election. He earned mixed reviews his first year or two and his enemies were really revved up to oppose him. He had a hostile press and Democrats giving hour-long special orders denouncing him and his policies on almost every single night on Cspan.

But he got around a Democrat controlled Congress to accomplish what he wanted to do by going straight to the people and making his case. And the people began to believe in him. And they began to believe themselves. And they began to feel good about America again. He took 49 of the 50 states in his 1884 re-election losing only in Mondale's Minnesota and he gave Mondale a good race there.

Contrast that to President Obama who has had huge majorities in both houses of Congress, the most favorable press of any President in history, and who makes his case on television at least several times a week. I doubt he could get elected dog catcher in most states if the election were held this month.

I think those who think they hate Reagan simply don't know much about him.

I am not sure Fred Thompson would be the one to take up that mantle though. Fred's time may have come and gone. But I bet there is somebody out there.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Pretty good piece. I would vote for him again.

If Republicans could, surely they would nominate Ronald Reagan for president in 2012. As it appears increasingly likely that Republicans -- conservative Republicans -- will control Congress after the 2012 elections, the only missing element in the political equation is a strong, conservative president like Ronald Reagan. In the mix of possible candidates for 2012, there are some potentially promising people.

Sarah Palin, rightly beloved by nearly all conservatives for her honesty, her advocacy, and her spunk, will figure into any list of candidates. Mitt Romney, who decently withdrew from the race before he lost in 2008, ought to be on the short list as well. Mike Huckabee will be some conservatives' favorite as well. Tim Pawlenty has decided that America really needs him to be president, and other Republicans will too.

With deepest respect for Sarah, none of these candidates is another Reagan. Many people have decided that we simply will not find another Reagan for a long time. I think otherwise. During the 2008 nomination season, I wrote several articles proposing a Republican not yet in the race as the Next Reagan. The stars were not aligned right then for him, but all that may be different in 2012. What do we want in our Next Reagan?

First, we want someone whose conservatism is beyond question -- someone who campaigned hard for Doug Hoffman, for example, even while the RNC was supporting the RINO. Second, we want someone of absolute integrity -- someone who is willing to stand all alone if he thinks he is right. Third, we want someone who does not "need" politics -- someone who was a great success in life before entering politics. Fourth, we want someone disassociated from the failures of Obama and also of Bush -- someone who grasped America's disgust with Washington long before the Beltway insiders. Fifth, we want a "grownup" -- someone who is in every sense of the word mature, sober, and serious. Sixth, we want a great communicator -- someone, like Reagan, who works well in every medium of communication. Seventh, we want someone who is universally perceived as a good man -- just like Reagan. One Republican in 2008 met all those criteria, and in 2012, he stands out at least as clearly as anyone as our Next Reagan: Fred Thompson.

American Thinker: Why Not Nominate the Next Reagan in 2012?

I'm sorry but Reagn WASN'T a "conservative" he TRIPLED our national debt.