Just a thought about Ronald Reagan

[Darkhawk28]

Just a thought here...

Ronald Reagan was once a Democrat, then didn't like the direction of that party and switch sides as we all know.

If Reagan were in his prime (faculties primarily), would he still hold allegiance to the new neoconservative GOP?

Just an observation, I don't think he would've liked it one bit, but I may be off base here. Any thoughts?


Edit: Topic Summary changed for better clarity.

 

[daveshel]

Ronald Jr. seems to think so.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Today's Democrats? Not a chance in hell.

CsG

 

[cwjerome]

Ronald Jr. has always been fairly liberal, even growing up with his father. Reagan's other son Michael is very conservative. (the 2 daughters were split the same way).

Being a huge fan of Ronald Reagan, following him and reading many books on him, I can say unequivacally that he would NOT be a democrat. He wouldn't thrive on the growth of the government that's taken place, but he wouldn't join a party that would do even more expansion. I think he would look at the 'War on Terror' much the same way he saw the cold war, and challenge it forcefully and completely. People think Bush is a war-monger, boy I'd hate for them to see what Reagan would've done.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Ronald Jr. has always been fairly liberal, even growing up with his father. Reagan's other son Michael is very conservative. (the 2 daughters were split the same way).

Being a huge fan of Ronald Reagan, following him and reading many books on him, I can say unequivacally that he would NOT be a democrat. He wouldn't thrive on the growth of the government that's taken place, but he wouldn't join a party that would do even more expansion. I think he would look at the 'War on Terror' much the same way he saw the cold war, and challenge it forcefully and completely. People think Bush is a war-monger, boy I'd hate for them to see what Reagan would've done.

I don't, Reagan would've done it right.

 

[Infohawk]

I don't see evidence Reagan would have taken the same attitude as Bush towards the war on terror. Reagan had a lot of dialogue with the Soviets and had allies. And I could be wrong but did he ever attack the wrong country in the name of fighting communism?

 

[daveshel]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Ronald Jr. has always been fairly liberal, even growing up with his father. Reagan's other son Michael is very conservative. (the 2 daughters were split the same way).

Being a huge fan of Ronald Reagan, following him and reading many books on him, I can say unequivacally that he would NOT be a democrat. He wouldn't thrive on the growth of the government that's taken place, but he wouldn't join a party that would do even more expansion. I think he would look at the 'War on Terror' much the same way he saw the cold war, and challenge it forcefully and completely. People think Bush is a war-monger, boy I'd hate for them to see what Reagan would've done.

I think the question is not so much whether he would embrace the Democratic Party but if he would be repulsed by what the Republican Party has become.

 

[DanJ]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Today's Democrats? Not a chance in hell.

Today's Republicans? Not a chance in hell.

 

[BA]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
I don't see evidence Reagan would have taken the same attitude as Bush towards the war on terror. Reagan had a lot of dialogue with the Soviets and had allies. And I could be wrong but did he ever attack the wrong country in the name of fighting communism?

Not directly.
He did support the anti-communist forces in Afghanistan and Latin America.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: daveshel

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Ronald Jr. has always been fairly liberal, even growing up with his father. Reagan's other son Michael is very conservative. (the 2 daughters were split the same way).

Being a huge fan of Ronald Reagan, following him and reading many books on him, I can say unequivacally that he would NOT be a democrat. He wouldn't thrive on the growth of the government that's taken place, but he wouldn't join a party that would do even more expansion. I think he would look at the 'War on Terror' much the same way he saw the cold war, and challenge it forcefully and completely. People think Bush is a war-monger, boy I'd hate for them to see what Reagan would've done.

I think the question is not so much whether he would embrace the Democratic Party but if he would be repulsed by what the Republican Party has become.

No. You on the left seem to think it's some big bad "neocon" Party but that isn't true in the slightest. Reagan would be quite at home in the GOP of today. He left the democrats because they changed - they haven't changed back.

CsG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DanJ

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Today's Democrats? Not a chance in hell.

Today's Republicans? Not a chance in hell.

Actually yes. Maybe if you knew a little about Reagan or about the current GOP you'd make more informed statements. Ofcourse don't let me stand in the way of you running your mouth...

CsG

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: BA

Originally posted by: Infohawk
I don't see evidence Reagan would have taken the same attitude as Bush towards the war on terror. Reagan had a lot of dialogue with the Soviets and had allies. And I could be wrong but did he ever attack the wrong country in the name of fighting communism?

Not directly.
He did support the anti-communist forces in Afghanistan and Latin America.

There's a stonger connection between Afghanistan and Latin America then there is between Iraq and the Taliban. It's possible Regan would have gone for the wrong war (after all he was into Iran-Contra sleazyness), but I don't see enough evidence for it.

 

[cwjerome]

There is absolutely nothing showing me Reagan would be repulsed... it's a liberal's wet dream. Ford is happy with the party, Bush the first is, Cheney, Rummy, and dozens of high up people in and out of the admin who have been around for 20+ and 30+ years are happy, including moderates like McCain and Rudy G. Actually, Bush's base is very strong -much more so than Kerry's. The funniest thing is it will be Democrats who cross the line that gets Bush re-elected.

 

[daveshel]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: daveshel

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Ronald Jr. has always been fairly liberal, even growing up with his father. Reagan's other son Michael is very conservative. (the 2 daughters were split the same way).

Being a huge fan of Ronald Reagan, following him and reading many books on him, I can say unequivacally that he would NOT be a democrat. He wouldn't thrive on the growth of the government that's taken place, but he wouldn't join a party that would do even more expansion. I think he would look at the 'War on Terror' much the same way he saw the cold war, and challenge it forcefully and completely. People think Bush is a war-monger, boy I'd hate for them to see what Reagan would've done.

I think the question is not so much whether he would embrace the Democratic Party but if he would be repulsed by what the Republican Party has become.

No. You on the left seem to think it's some big bad "neocon" Party but that isn't true in the slightest. Reagan would be quite at home in the GOP of today. He left the democrats because they changed - they haven't changed back.

CsG

The Republican Party has historically stood for fiscal conservatism, personal freedom, isolationism and small government. The party that calls itself Republican today has none of these attributes. The party has changed to the extent that using the same old name is misleading, and I wouldn't care were it not for the fact that I know several people who are planning to vote Republican because they have always voted Republican and don't know much about the issues of the day. The cost of whatever social programs the Democrats might envision will be far less than the cost of the PNAC wars.

 

[Infohawk]

Maybe you're right. Reagan wasn't particularly known for being bright either...

 

[BA]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: BA

Originally posted by: Infohawk
I don't see evidence Reagan would have taken the same attitude as Bush towards the war on terror. Reagan had a lot of dialogue with the Soviets and had allies. And I could be wrong but did he ever attack the wrong country in the name of fighting communism?

Not directly.
He did support the anti-communist forces in Afghanistan and Latin America.

There's a stonger connection between Afghanistan and Latin America then there is between Iraq and the Taliban. It's possible Regan would have gone for the wrong war (after all he was into Iran-Contra sleazyness), but I don't see enough evidence for it.

It's doubtful Reagan would invade Iraq, he was too busy selling them weapons to use against Iran. After the Iran-Iraq war, I don't know if that would have continued, or after the invasion of Kuwait. Assuming the first Gulf War actually occured under Reagan, I suspect the most likely chain of events would see Reagan actually supporting the Kurds who rebelled.

Rumsfeld & Saddam

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Maybe you're right. Reagan wasn't particularly known for being bright either...

And there it is. I just knew someone would say he was stupid. It's the classic leftist tactic against those on the right. They tried that against Reagan in '84 - well, we all know what happened in the '84 election. Anyway - keep up the Bush is stupid routine

CsG

 

[daveshel]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
The funniest thing is it will be Democrats who cross the line that gets Bush re-elected.

Right. The media is awash with reports of these folks.

They must want to keep this strategy a secret until the last minute.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Maybe you're right. Reagan wasn't particularly known for being bright either...

And there it is. I just knew someone would say he was stupid. It's the classic leftist tactic against those on the right. They tried that against Reagan in '84 - well, we all know what happened in the '84 election. Anyway - keep up the Bush is stupid routine

CsG

It's relevant right now. I suggested he might not do the same thing Bush would do. Someone argued against it and I conceded they might have done the same thing because they're both known as not being intelligent.
I don't think all Republicans are stupid (ignorant yes, but that's different). But Reagan and Bush are both known as intellectual lightweights.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
There is absolutely nothing showing me Reagan would be repulsed... it's a liberal's wet dream. Ford is happy with the party, Bush the first is, Cheney, Rummy, and dozens of high up people in and out of the admin who have been around for 20+ and 30+ years are happy, including moderates like McCain and Rudy G. Actually, Bush's base is very strong -much more so than Kerry's. The funniest thing is it will be Democrats who cross the line that gets Bush re-elected.

The Republicans have changed quite a bit in recent years. Or am I the only one who remembers when they were the party for personal freedoms, small government and fiscal responsibility? Those are things Reagan stood for, and I don't think the Republicans of today stand for the same things.

You're also wrong about who supports the party. Have you heard McCain talk? It's pretty clear he's not very happy with the current crop of Republican leaders, and it's been said that Bush the first disagrees with his son's current actions. Personally I know far more former Republicans who have become disgusted with the current state of the party (like myself) than Democrats who think their party has changed.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: cwjerome
There is absolutely nothing showing me Reagan would be repulsed... it's a liberal's wet dream. Ford is happy with the party, Bush the first is, Cheney, Rummy, and dozens of high up people in and out of the admin who have been around for 20+ and 30+ years are happy, including moderates like McCain and Rudy G. Actually, Bush's base is very strong -much more so than Kerry's. The funniest thing is it will be Democrats who cross the line that gets Bush re-elected.

The Republicans have changed quite a bit in recent years. Or am I the only one who remembers when they were the party for personal freedoms, small government and fiscal responsibility? Those are things Reagan stood for, and I don't think the Republicans of today stand for the same things.

You're also wrong about who supports the party. Have you heard McCain talk? It's pretty clear he's not very happy with the current crop of Republican leaders, and it's been said that Bush the first disagrees with his son's current actions. Personally I know far more former Republicans who have become disgusted with the current state of the party (like myself) than Democrats who think their party has changed.

Bob Barr comes to mind. Hagel another.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: daveshel

Originally posted by: cwjerome
The funniest thing is it will be Democrats who cross the line that gets Bush re-elected.

Right. The media is awash with reports of these folks.

They must want to keep this strategy a secret until the last minute.

I know I already responded to this, but I think it bears repeating. There is no evidence at all that Bush has support from the liberal side, none at all. Not even a little bit. There are a ton of groups like Republicans for Kerry and individual conservatives that are voting against Bush, but I have yet to hear of or meet a single liberal or Democrat (other than that idiot, Zell Miller, who I honestly believe has gone off the deep end) who support Bush.

I suspect most people would agree with me, or am I just watching the real news instead of Faux?

 

[Pliablemoose]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
The funniest thing is it will be Democrats who cross the line that gets Bush re-elected.

:thumbsup:

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose

Originally posted by: cwjerome
The funniest thing is it will be Democrats who cross the line that gets Bush re-elected.

:thumbsup:

Don't bet on it.

 

[cwjerome]

daveshel: It's not a strategy, it's just a reality. Since Reagan created a new class called "Reagan Democrats" (mostly southerners), they have been fairly consistently voting repug since. The fact is, NO repug would have been elected since Nixon if it weren't for swing voters.

Rainsford: I live in Arizona and I am VERY familiar with McCain. McCain is a maverick and fairly moderate, but he supports Bush 100% and has through the whole election process. He is a proud Repug, 100% supportive of Iraq, and very optimistic about his party. Bush's daddy in on the record of fully supporting his son since the beginning. And Reagan oversaw the largest expansion of government up until that time, and also the largest deficits in history up until that time.

The more things change, the more things stay the same. It's a bogus issue... people swing either way in every election, nothing's different.