Why Not Nominate the Next Reagan in 2012?

[Foxfyre]

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.

No he didn't. His budgets did not break the bank, but all were declared dead on arrival by a Democratically controlled Congress. He did sign off the appropriations bills passed by Congress in return for getting what he wanted to fight the cold war. And the USSR unable to keep up with Reagan-style fighting of the cold war, plus other factors, did collapse and hundreds of millions of people were released from a very bleak and uncertain life behind the iron curtain.

Was it worth it? You bet it was.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

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.

I actually agree with you Starkey.....

 

[PatekPhilippe]

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

and once again I will say the Democrats who controlled both houses in Congress during Reagan's 8 years in office approved the budgets PROPOSED by Reagan. Acting like the Democrats are blameless in the tripling of the debt on Reagan's watch is like saying Ru Paul isn't gay.

 

[The T]

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?

You asked...do your OWN search.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Both parties since Reagan have grown the government, the debt, and the deficit.

 

[Foxfyre]

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

and once again I will say the Democrats who controlled both houses in Congress during Reagan's 8 years in office approved the budgets PROPOSED by Reagan. Acting like the Democrats are blameless in the tripling of the debt on Reagan's watch is like saying Ru Paul isn't gay.

They didn't even approve Reagan's budgets. They declared them dead on arrival. They wrote their own budget and sent it back to Reagan for his signature. As it was the only way that he could provide for the national security/defense in the way he felt was critical, he signed them. It wasn't that he wasn't trying to bring down the deficit or that Congress was not giving lip service to that too. But the ball is always in Congress's court. The President has to propose a budget because he is the CEO with oversight of all the government agencies and the military. But it is always Congress that has to pass one.

From an archived Heritage Foundation document in 1987:
Excerpt:

Ronald Reagan is under mounting pressure from congressional leaders to agree to a "budget summit" to build bipartisan support for the fiscal year 1988 budget. After the now annual declaration that the President's budget is dead on arrival on Capitol Hill, Democratic lawmakers, led by the new Senate Budget Committee chairman, Lawton Chiles of Florida, want the White House to agree to a "grand compromise." In this, Congress supposedly would agree to some spending reductions while the White House would give in and accept tax increases.

Here they go again. In 1982, Reagan bought such a grand compromise. He trusted Congress when it promised three dollars of budget cuts for each dollar of tax increases. It turned out to be a fake pass. The result: the American public got the tax increase but almost no spending cuts. Ronald Reagan was tricked by Congress in 1982. He should not fall for it a second time.

Reagan has offered a federal budget that meets the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings deficit reduction targets. Congressional leaders know, meanwhile, that they will pay a high political price if they raise taxes before Reagan makes the first move. The White House thus'can and should stand firm. If Congress offers a draft budget that meets its own deficit reduction targets without a tax increase, then Reagan should agree to a summit conference on that basis, where the differences in spending priorities can be hammered out. Without that document in hand, however-, his answer should be "No deal." '
In the Federal Budget Game, Reagan Holds the Best Cards

 

[JakeStarkey]

The process involves both the congress and the president.

Both branches are responsible for the successful passage of legislation.