How easily we forget. Reagan was the poster boy for moderate Republicans. He wouldn't be "pure" enough for today's GOP.
"As president, the conservative icon approved several tax increases to deal with a soaring budget deficit, repeatedly boosted the nation's debt limit, signed into law a bill granting amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants and, despite his anti-Washington rhetoric, oversaw an increase in the size and spending of the federal government. Before that, as California governor, he enacted what at the time was the largest state tax increase in American history. He also signed into law one of the nation's most permissive abortion bills; any Republican who tried that today would be cast out of the party.
The fact that Reagan often took the actions grudgingly speaks to what, by modern Republican standards, may be one of the greatest heresies of all: At bottom, Reagan was a pragmatist, willing, when necessary, to cut a deal and compromise.
"He had a strong set of core values and operated off of those," said Stuart Spencer, a GOP strategist who stood by Reagan's side for virtually his entire political career, starting with his first run for governor. "But when push came to shove, he did various things he didn't like doing, because he knew it was in the best interests of the state or country at the time."
The real Ronald Reagan may not meet today's Republican standards - Los Angeles Times
The Republican party was once a "third party". it wasn't formed until the 1850's.
All of the existing Republican establishment needs to go, and the new breed Tea Party / Linertarians need full control of the party. The baby boomer generation of politicians need to retire politely or be kicked out of office rudely. They are the generation who put us where we are, and we OBVIOUSLY need some fresh ideas.
The real problem, IMHO, is that a third party has never won a presidential election, and voting third party just siphons votes from the Republicans and ensures that Democrats continue to win.
Quoting the ultra-liberal LA Times is not convincing. Their bias and revisionist history reeks.
How easily we forget. Reagan was the poster boy for moderate Republicans. He wouldn't be "pure" enough for today's GOP.
All of the existing Republican establishment needs to go, and the new breed Tea Party / Linertarians need full control of the party. The baby boomer generation of politicians need to retire politely or be kicked out of office rudely. They are the generation who put us where we are, and we OBVIOUSLY need some fresh ideas.
No one really wants Ronnie back; they just want the deified version of him they've been worshipping for the past quarter century.
Virulent extremism doesn't qualify as a "new idea." Allowing the TP to further hijack the GOP is a surefire path to a stronger Democratic party. What the Republican party needs is a more moderate Republican party that takes a less hardline stance on losing social issues. The alternative is the alienation of young voters, which is ultimately a losing strategy.
We had a guy who was more moderate, and had a less hardline stance on social issues, but he wouldn't run. Mitch Daniels.
Third Party or not, the Libertarian Party is more likely to give back to the people what the people should have, even if what they should have is to make the wrong decisions for themselves.
When did a movement based on smaller government and fewer taxes become associated with being all about social issues?No one really wants Ronnie back; they just want the deified version of him they've been worshipping for the past quarter century.
Virulent extremism doesn't qualify as a "new idea." Allowing the TP to further hijack the GOP is a surefire path to a stronger Democratic party. What the Republican party needs is a more moderate Republican party that takes a less hardline stance on losing social issues. The alternative is the alienation of young voters, which is ultimately a losing strategy.
I love to read revisionist history posts about Ronald Reagan that were posted by what I suspect are kiddies too young to have any memories of that era.
We are talking about modern American history here, say since 1900. The Republican party was formed as an anti-slavery party, and given the state of the dumbed-down electorate these days, the Praetorian press, and the myriad of distractions and lies that have been fed to our young people, I see no issue that is polarizing enough as slavery was in the 1850s to pull enough people together to make an electoral majority.
Well said!
Not really. The LP isn't a contender outside of a few local elections. On a national level their only impact is to drain a few points from Republican candidates.