Michael Reagan: My dad might be too moderate for today’s GOP

posted at 8:08 pm on September 27, 2011 by Tina Korbe

As the desire to recruit New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie to run for president seems to have reached a fever pitch, I’ve found myself repeatedly wondering, “What’s so wrong with the candidates we have now?” In fact, at the end of the CNN/Tea Party Express debate a couple weeks ago, I tweeted it.

Yes, Perry was wrong on Gardasil. Yes, Mitt Romney was wrong on Romneycare. But either would be better than Obama. Virtually any of the GOP candidates would be!

Is it an issue of polish? Some say Romney has too much of it. Others are punishing Perry for appearing less than poised in last week’s debate. Have you ever tried to count the number of awkward pauses in a President Obama speech?

The point is not that we should “settle.” Like Michele Bachmann, I think Obama’s underwhelming presidency and the 2012 elections give us an unparalleled opportunity to pick a truly conservative president. The point is that we need to look at the candidates a little more holistically — and ask ourselves who will lead in a direction we want to follow. Who up on that stage is comfortable enough in his own skin to not worry about being a pleaser, to just be jovial, to set priorities, to have firm, principled convictions (evolved, perhaps, from past mistakes) and to hold to those convictions even after assuming the position of greatest influence in the nation?

For that’s the sort of leader Ronald Reagan was — and he didn’t necessarily have a flawless record. His son said as much on Fox News today:



Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Most of the puritans on this site who say they will stay home if Romney is the nominee would have opposed Reagan.

Basilsbest on September 27, 2011 at 10:06 PM

No one is going to please everyone. No one is going to make all the right decisions all the time. It just is not possible. The thing is a lot of people demanding this perfection are not perfect themselves. None of us are.

Terrye on September 27, 2011 at 9:52 PM

Very well said, Terrye. Was a pleasure reading your comments.

BruthaMan on September 27, 2011 at 10:06 PM

Michael is right. Ronald Reagan was far too “personally moderate” to pass muster with today’s Puritan conservatives. He was very tolerant of homosexuals (how could you not be in Hollywood) and had a few of them in his inner circle. His children, other than Michael, were weird and definitely not conservative. He talked about God-given rights of Man but almost never went to church. His wife would be seen today as a social-climbing shrew.

And anyone who thinks we are in a mess now was not around in 1978-79. Few things can sap a nation’s confidence like 12% inflation, gas lines, food shortages, an enemy on the move around the world and seemingly unstoppable, capitalism and democracy in retreat, and a feckless President who had not a clue how to fix any of it. Reagan had a plan to cut taxes and regulation, but in reality it was his relentless optimism and clear executive leadership that restored confidence in America.

There is no reason that Rick Perry, or Mitt Romney, or even Herman Cain, cannot similarly restore confidence in America this time around. They believe in America in a way that Barack Obama obviously doesn’t.

rockmom on September 27, 2011 at 10:07 PM

In fact, I would say it is harder now to be successful as a leader today than it was even 20 years ago.

Voter from WA State on September 27, 2011 at 10:00 PM

If Reagan was alive today the conservative base would rally around him in a second. It would be over for the others, because he wouldn’t snivel, apologize or back down. He believed in conservatism and anyone who ever heard him knew it.

Palin, Newt, Johnson, and Santorum or the only ones I get that from now. Newt is weak and won’t stand by his own beliefs, Palin may not be running, and Johnson/Santorum have problems of presence and delivery as well as being a little flaky.

We don’t demand perfection, just honesty and basic conservatism. You seem willing to settle for a non-conservative and are OK with being sold the old shuck and jive. Others aren’t.

sharrukin on September 27, 2011 at 10:08 PM

Most of the puritans on this site who say they will stay home if Romney is the nominee would have opposed Reagan.

Basilsbest on September 27, 2011 at 10:06 PM

People who say they will sit home if their candidate isn’t the nominee are selfish and care nothing about the greater good of our country. It always amazes me that people are so selfish and self-centered.

Last election was the most difficult election in my lifetime. I looked at it as a choice between a leftwing radical snakeoil salesman or a centrist democrat (McCain). The choice sucked, like no political choice I’ve ever made, but I marched my butt up to the election center and voted…for McCain.

BruthaMan on September 27, 2011 at 10:11 PM

Most of the puritans on this site who say they will stay home if Romney is the nominee would have opposed Reagan.

Basilsbest on September 27, 2011 at 10:06 PM

No, they wouldn’t have. Reagan was a conservative in a time when America leaned far more right. In a few decades, we have reached the edge of bankruptcy, elected a president because of the color of his skin, and labeled anyone who criticizes suicide bombers as “islamophobic”. There’s no Soviet Union to fight anymore. We’re in a much different time, and need a different kind of leader. So far…none of those on the stage make the grade.

MadisonConservative on September 27, 2011 at 10:12 PM

I would love Cain, and I may support him, but I doubt he can win the nomination. If he does, great. He fulfills my requirements. neoavatara on September 27, 2011 at 9:26 PM

Right on. We need another President with no experience at governing. Right of return? What’s that?

Basilsbest on September 27, 2011 at 10:12 PM

We don’t demand perfection, just honesty and basic conservatism. You seem willing to settle for a non-conservative and are OK with being sold the old shuck and jive. Others aren’t.

sharrukin on September 27, 2011 at 10:08 PM

Well said.

MadisonConservative on September 27, 2011 at 10:12 PM

So far…none of those on the stage make the grade.adisonConservative on September 27, 2011 at 10:12 PM

With the exceptions of Huntsman and Paul, everyone on that stage is infinitely better than Obama. As is Palin.

Basilsbest on September 27, 2011 at 10:15 PM

Most of the puritans on this site who say they will stay home if Romney is the nominee would have opposed Reagan.

Basilsbest on September 27, 2011 at 10:06 PM

I won’t vote for Romney. I realize there is no perfect candidate. But Romney isn’t just imperfect. He is awful. He makes McCain look like Reagan. Hell, he makes Clinton look like Reagan.

I am not going to vote for someone just because he has an “R” next to his name. And if that means another 4 years of Obama, so be it. The alternative would be no different. At least with Obama there, we can pretty much guarantee that 2014 the GOP holds the house and most likely the senate. Libtard prez with GOP congress, not a bad way to go.

With Romney, you can pretty much guarantee the Dems take the house and senate. And the Dems controlling Congress with Romney will be a repeat of 2009-2010. Thanks but no thanks.

angryed on September 27, 2011 at 10:18 PM

Last election was the most difficult election in my lifetime. I looked at it as a choice between a leftwing radical snakeoil salesman or a centrist democrat (McCain). The choice sucked, like no political choice I’ve ever made, but I marched my butt up to the election center and voted…for McCain. BruthaMan on September 27, 2011 at 10:11 PM

The words and conduct of an adult.

Basilsbest on September 27, 2011 at 10:18 PM

But Romney isn’t just imperfect. He is awful. He makes McCain look like Reagan. Hell, he makes Clinton look like Reagan.

Unhinged.

Basilsbest on September 27, 2011 at 10:20 PM

Discussions like this are nuts. You don’t transplant Ronald Reagan into present day and expect him to not change. With the Cold War in the history books, he would not have to make the devil’s bargain with the democratics over domestic spending vs military buildup. He would instantly adjust to that new reality. The crushing deficits that we are burdened with today would also lead him to greater conservatism in spending.

He would make those obvious changes and end up looking like those in the Tea Party caucus.

slickwillie2001 on September 27, 2011 at 10:22 PM

Unhinged.

Basilsbest on September 27, 2011 at 10:20 PM

Nominate someone better then.

Its his vote and he can do what he pleases with it. McCain lost because he couldn’t secure the base and Romney may share the same fate.

The problem ain’t the customer… its the crappy product you are selling.

sharrukin on September 27, 2011 at 10:24 PM

What’s truly nuts is the suggestion that any of the GOP candidates, other than Paul and Huntsman, isn’t infinitely better than the Marxist in the White House.

Basilsbest on September 27, 2011 at 10:27 PM

There is no reason that Rick Perry, or Mitt Romney, or even Herman Cain, cannot similarly restore confidence in America this time around. They believe in America in a way that Barack Obama obviously doesn’t.

rockmom on September 27, 2011 at 10:07 PM

I’m for every one of them, and also for any one of them. Because they all get the big stuff. On some details we differ but as long as the main issues are addressed we can buy ourselves the luxury of duking it out over peripherals another day.

The purists at this point are cowards. Their demands are so personal, so niche, that they can never be fulfilled and they know it. Purism is the ultimate cop-out: advocate for some unrealistic set of criteria and then when it’s inevitably-on-purpose unfulfilled, be able to say “don’t blame me, I’m not responsible, I wanted fill-in-the-blank utopia.”

I want real solutions. Several of the current candidates are capable of delivering. I will not allow my personal peccadilloes to interfere. YMMV.

Gilda on September 27, 2011 at 10:27 PM

The problem ain’t the customer… its the crappy product you are selling.sharrukin on September 27, 2011 at 10:24 PM

I ain’t sellin nuttin. Those of you who are staying home if Romney is the nominee are obviously buying Obama.

Basilsbest on September 27, 2011 at 10:30 PM

We don’t demand perfection, just honesty and basic conservatism. You seem willing to settle for a non-conservative and are OK with being sold the old shuck and jive. Others aren’t.

sharrukin on September 27, 2011 at 10:08 PM

Well said.

MadisonConservative on September 27, 2011 at 10:12 PM

Ditto. I will “settle” for the first candidate who hasn’t endorsed an unconstitutional absurdity like the insurance mandate or some socialist disaster like Obamacare, or defied the 2nd Amendment in public office, regardless how flawed. There were plenty such candidates, and I have never sought “purity” or perfection.

McCotter, Bolton, Thune, Daniels, Palin, Gingrich even. I’d vote for Romney against Our Idiot President O’Bozo, but he lacks even the slightest conservative philosophical thinking.

Jaibones on September 27, 2011 at 10:32 PM

And pardon me for saying it, but what does Mike Reagan do for a living, other than flog Ronald Reagan’s memory for money? I can’t think of a single reason to listen to him talk.

Jaibones on September 27, 2011 at 10:34 PM

I ain’t sellin nuttin.

Basilsbest on September 27, 2011 at 10:30 PM

No, you’re griping at those who refuse to buy. People are tired to death of a) having to hold their noses to vote and b) forever bveing told that they have to vote against someone instead of for someone.

ddrintn on September 27, 2011 at 10:34 PM

With the exceptions of Huntsman and Paul, everyone on that stage is infinitely better than Obama. As is Palin.

Basilsbest on September 27, 2011 at 10:15 PM

Really? What’s so bad about Huntsman that isn’t bad about Romney? Is Ron Paul that worse? Why?

See, you’re going to come up with your own standards. Explain how yours are superior.

MadisonConservative on September 27, 2011 at 10:34 PM

Jaibones on September 27, 2011 at 10:32 PM

Do you realize you’ve dittoed children who say they will stay home on election night if Romney is the nominee?

Basilsbest on September 27, 2011 at 10:36 PM

So you are saying that both Romney and McCain are worse than Obama. Really? You believe that? If so, I think you are on the wrong site. You might want to head for the Kos Kids.

Voter from WA State on September 27, 2011 at 10:29 PM

It’s merely the old difference of going over the cliff at 50 mph instead of 140 mph. The destination’s the same. The only possible long-term difference — and even THAT is iffy — is in SC nominations.

ddrintn on September 27, 2011 at 10:37 PM

Do you realize you’ve dittoed children who say they will stay home on election night if Romney is the nominee?

Basilsbest on September 27, 2011 at 10:36 PM

So what would you do if Ron Paul’s the nominee?

ddrintn on September 27, 2011 at 10:38 PM

Really? What’s so bad about Huntsman that isn’t bad about Romney? Is Ron Paul that worse? Why?

See, you’re going to come up with your own standards. Explain how yours are superior.

Huntsman is a liberal who believes in AGW. Paul is a naive isolationist who doesn’t understand that Islam is on the march and will fill the gap left by America withdrawing from the world.

Basilsbest on September 27, 2011 at 10:41 PM

There is a good possibility that your candidate is not the one who will be nominated. Generally, the person who is nominated is the one the majority wants.

Voter from WA State on September 27, 2011 at 10:40 PM

There’s a difference between “not the candidate I wanted” and “one that makes me retch”.

ddrintn on September 27, 2011 at 10:42 PM

Huntsman is a liberal who believes in AGW.

Basilsbest on September 27, 2011 at 10:41 PM

Many feel the same way about Romney. Tell me how they’re radically different.

ddrintn on September 27, 2011 at 10:43 PM

This would be easy to dismiss if it were Ron Reagan Jr. saying it. Michael, not so much.

Ryan Anthony on September 27, 2011 at 10:43 PM

So what would you do if Ron Paul’s the nominee?
ddrintn on September 27, 2011 at 10:38 PM

The same thing I’ll do in the event that Santa doesn’t bring everything on my wish list or if 100 virgins show up at my front door wearing nothing but a smile.

Basilsbest on September 27, 2011 at 10:45 PM

Huntsman is a liberal who believes in AGW.

Basilsbest on September 27, 2011 at 10:41 PM

Add Newt, Daniels, Pawlenty, Perry, and Romney to that list as well.

sharrukin on September 27, 2011 at 10:46 PM

Like I said . . . you prefer Obama to Mitt Romney and a true American hero, John McCain. Good to know that.

Voter from WA State on September 27, 2011 at 10:42 PM

McCain was a true American hero in the Vietnam war. It doesn’t mean I have to swallow his squish politics in the present day. Otherwise, you’re demonstrating the “voting against” thing I mentioned above. “If you don’t vote for McCain, you’re voting for Obama!” Bullsh1t.

ddrintn on September 27, 2011 at 10:47 PM

“If you don’t vote for McCain, you’re voting for Obama!” Bullsh1t.ddrintn on September 27, 2011 at 10:47 PM

Since when is a tautology bull$hit?

Basilsbest on September 27, 2011 at 10:50 PM

Huntsman is a liberal who believes in AGW.
Basilsbest on September 27, 2011 at 10:41 PM

Add Newt, Daniels, Pawlenty, Perry, and Romney to that list as well. sharrukin on September 27, 2011 at 10:46 PM

You have a point but they don’t push this idiocy like he does.

Basilsbest on September 27, 2011 at 10:56 PM

So we are agreed. All of us will fight for our candidate and then support the nominee. Night all.

Basilsbest on September 27, 2011 at 11:00 PM

You have a point but they don’t push this idiocy like he does.

Basilsbest on September 27, 2011 at 10:56 PM

Well Perry mandated 10% of the energy in Texas to be green and they spent $7 billion on it. What did Huntsman do that matches that?

sharrukin on September 27, 2011 at 11:02 PM

Michael Reagan was adopted and you can tell…

Jenfidel on September 27, 2011 at 8:19 PM

What a worthless piece of dog crap you are.

annoyinglittletwerp on September 27, 2011 at 11:10 PM

“If you don’t vote for McCain, you’re voting for Obama!” Bullsh1t.ddrintn on September 27, 2011 at 10:47 PM

Since when is a tautology bull$hit?

Basilsbest on September 27, 2011 at 10:50 PM

When they’re not the same thing. I voted for McCain; but if I had voted for the Constitution party candidate or the Libertarian, I wouldn’t have been voting for Obama.

ddrintn on September 27, 2011 at 11:15 PM

^ Or, I might add, if had not voted at all.

ddrintn on September 27, 2011 at 11:15 PM

So you are saying that both Romney and McCain are worse than Obama. Really? You believe that? If so, I think you are on the wrong site. You might want to head for the Kos Kids.

Voter from WA State on September 27, 2011 at 10:29 PM

Read what I wrote again.

Romney and a Dem Congress is worse than Obama and a GOP Congress.

angryed on September 27, 2011 at 11:23 PM

Reagan’s not here, so we cannot know, regardless of the speculation. And, if he were still here, today’s GOP wouldn’t be the exact same today’s GOP, so this is rather pointless, IMO.
Christien on September 27, 2011 at 9:26 PM

A good response to Michael Reagan’s stupid statement.
rrpjr on September 27, 2011 at 9:40 PM

If Reagan was here today, he’d see the wreckage wrought by two generations of Bush and the Democrat administrations they caused. He’d see how Bush II used and abused the military (in spite of his popularity with them). He’d see the utter depravity of country-club liberal Republicans and their make-nice with evil liberalism.

Reagan would see Obama and call a spade a spade, as he always did. He’d see Boehner & Co. and repudiate his rule about not criticizing other Republicans.

Michael jumped the shark on this one.

Feedie on September 27, 2011 at 11:25 PM

ddrintn on September 27, 2011 at 10:37 PM

It’s okay to admit you want Obama to win.

csdeven on September 27, 2011 at 11:28 PM

There is a good possibility that your candidate is not the one who will be nominated. Generally, the person who is nominated is the one the majority wants.

Voter from WA State on September 27, 2011 at 10:40 PM

You just don’t get it do you? I’m not, not voting for Romney because he isn’t MY candidate. I’m not voting for him because he is a liberal. I don’t really have a MY candidate. Of the 7 or 8 in the running I’d be fine voting for most of them. But if it is Romney, I won’t vote for him. Ditto for Huntsman. If I want a liberal Democrat, I’ll vote for the real thing, not for a liberal Democrat pretending to be a conservative Republican. It’s really not that hard to comprehend.

angryed on September 27, 2011 at 11:28 PM

It’s really not that hard to comprehend.

angryed on September 27, 2011 at 11:28 PM

We get it….you’re going to sit at home hacking your nose off with a butter knife praying Obama will win just so you can spite the world.

csdeven on September 27, 2011 at 11:31 PM

Huntsman is a liberal who believes in AGW.

So’s Romney. So’s Gingrich. Supposedly, so’s Perry.

Paul is a naive isolationist who doesn’t understand that Islam is on the march and will fill the gap left by America withdrawing from the world.

Basilsbest on September 27, 2011 at 10:41 PM

Obama starts wars left and right. Paul would slash spending like crazy, better than any of the other candidates.

See? You have your qualms, others have theirs. I’d gladly vote Paul over Obama. Apparently, you won’t. Suddenly, you’re the unreasonable one who would cast out Reagan.

MadisonConservative on September 27, 2011 at 11:32 PM

MadisonConservative on September 27, 2011 at 11:32 PM

I’m not a purist-my support of animal rights would get me tagged as a RINO by some-but it will be a cold day in Hell before I ever vote for Ron Paul.
I will NEVER vote for a Jew/Israel-hater.
Never.

annoyinglittletwerp on September 27, 2011 at 11:36 PM

Whatever. At the end of the day, I know that I’m tired of just settling… I know that a lot other people are, also…

fabrexe on September 28, 2011 at 12:01 AM

Here’s the deal – the establishment politics are not going to win this one, even if it means that Osucka stays in office. The Republican party had better start getting that message.

fabrexe on September 28, 2011 at 12:05 AM

“If you don’t vote for McCain, you’re voting for Obama!” Bullsh1t. ddrintn on September 27, 2011 at 10:47 PM

Since when is a tautology bull$hit?
Basilsbest on September 27, 2011 at 10:50 PM

When a B$’r’s sophistry reveals his fallacious
argument disguised as an herbalist’s “tautology”…

Barracuda vs. Hildabeast 2012!

“Let’s Roll”

On Watch on September 28, 2011 at 12:17 AM

fabrexe on September 28, 2011 at 12:05 AM

I’ve got an almost 18 year old son. This is about HIS future. As long as then nominee isn’t Bachmann or Chief Ronulan-it won’t be-I’m voting GOP…because I’m NOT a purist.

annoyinglittletwerp on September 28, 2011 at 12:23 AM

Who’s dressing Mikey nowadays!?
Looks like a down-in-the-heels WWF promoter…
Go back to Miami Motorboats Mike,
Btw, we knew the gipper too,
you aint even close!

“Let’s Roll”

On Watch on September 28, 2011 at 1:04 AM

Most of the puritans on this site who say they will stay home if Romney is the nominee would have opposed Reagan.

Basilsbest on September 27, 2011 at 10:06 PM

The fact that Reagan would be too moderate for Hot Air has been brung up dozens of times. Often it has been in the context of Romney as well. Good to see Michael Reagan agrees.

But… hopefully it is just the vocal minority. The responses on this thread have encouraged me greatly.

scotash on September 28, 2011 at 1:04 AM

Huntsman is a liberal who believes in AGW.

So’s Romney. So’s Gingrich. Supposedly, so’s Perry.

MadisonConservative on September 27, 2011 at 11:32 PM

“It is clear that the earth experiences natural cycles in temperature. However, science shows that human activity probably does play a role in stimulating the current fluctuations.”
-Ron Paul, Libertine Gynecologist and AGW Believer

Ronnie on September 28, 2011 at 1:22 AM

TheRightMan on September 27, 2011 at 9:10 PM

You quoted from Perry’s website???
Please.
The man lies about everything, especially his record.
Hardly anything you quoted is true.
Research Perry’s record: he has consistently run TX like a Liberal Democrat, which he still is.

Jenfidel on September 28, 2011 at 2:05 AM

That is very true. We cannot nominate someone who will just crash and burn like O’Donnell. What a disaster that was.

Voter from WA State on September 27, 2011 at 10:24 PM

O’Donnell’s campaign died from the knife in the back.

Slowburn on September 28, 2011 at 2:45 AM

Many of you missed Michael Reagan’s point, and I believe he KNEW his father better than any of us posters here…He is right that many HA posters here are TOO purist and Reagan was NOT against gays, he gave into amnesty, and on and on…Reagan is one my top three favorite presidents and yet there are several on here that think they have to hold their nose to vote for a Romney, Paul, Huntsman, Palin, etc…ANY ONE of these would be significantly better than Obama! Michael Reagan’s point!
For many of you Romney bashers…tell me what it is truly about the guy you do not like? He is conservative as much as any of the candidates and will KNOW how to run the country on day one…where many of the candidates will take months, if not longer, to learn how to be an executive and deal with foreign leaders.

g2825m on September 28, 2011 at 3:21 AM

For many of you Romney bashers…tell me what it is truly about the guy you do not like?

g2825m on September 28, 2011 at 3:21 AM

You asked.

Assault weapons ban

“He [Romney] is a supporter of the federal assault weapons ban.”
- Romney 2002 campaign website

“That’s not going to make me the hero of the NRA,” Romney told the Boston Herald in 1994.

At another campaign stop that year, he told reporters: “I don’t line up with the NRA.”
- Boston Globe, January 14, 2007

Americans should have the right to own and possess firearms as guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution,” said Governor Romney. “I’m proud to be among the many decent, law-abiding men and women who safely use firearms.”
- Governor Romney, News Release, January 12, 2007

“The minimum wage is important to our economy and Mitt Romney supports minimum wage increase, at least in line with inflation.”
- Romney 2002 campaign website

Governor Mitt Romney yesterday rejected the Legislature’s plan to raise the state minimum wage to $8 an hour over two years, angering Democratic lawmakers and advocates who accused him of abandoning a 2002 campaign pledge to significantly boost the pay of low-wage workers.
- Boston Globe, July 22, 2006

In a November 2005 interview with the Boston Globe, Romney described immigration proposals by McCain and others as “quite different” from amnesty, because they required illegal immigrants to register with the government, work for years, pay taxes, not take public benefits, and pay a fine before applying for citizenship.

“That’s very different than amnesty, where you literally say, ‘OK, everybody here gets to stay,’ “ Romney said in the interview. “It’s saying you could work your way into becoming a legal resident of the country by working here without taking benefits and then applying and then paying a fine.”

Romney also said in the interview that it was not “practical or economic for the country” to deport the estimated 12 million immigrants living in the US illegally. “These people contribute in many cases to our economy and to our society,” he said. “In some cases, they do not. But that’s a whole group we’re going to have to determine how to deal with.”
- Boston Globe, March 16, 2007

In his appeals to conservative voters, Romney has made the Arizona senator’s work on immigration one of his favorite targets. When McCain and other senators unveiled the latest reform bill two weeks ago, Romney called it the “wrong approach” and immediately launched a television ad slamming “amnesty” for illegal immigrants.
- Boston Globe, June 1, 2007

Romney didn’t support President Bush’s tax cuts in 2003. That earned him praise from liberal Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA)
- Boston Globe, April 11, 2003.

In 2002, Romney broke with his predecessor, Jane Swift, and Republican governors before her by declining to sign a written vow not to raise taxes once in office.

- Boston Globe, January 5, 2007

Almost five years after he refused to sign a “no new taxes” pledge during his campaign for governor, Mitt Romney announced yesterday that he had done just that, as his campaign for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination began in earnest.
- Boston Globe, January 5, 2007

During a debate, Romney declared: ‘I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time that my mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a US Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years we should sustain and support it.’ “

Planned Parenthood gave to the gubernatorial candidates in 2002, Romney answered ‘’yes” to the question, ‘Do you support the substance of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade?’

“Every decision I have made as Governor in a very liberal state has been on the side of favoring life.” – Governor Romney

“In seeking the support of the Log Cabin Republican Club, Romney wrote them a letter promising that ‘as we seek to establish full equality for America’s gay and lesbian citizens, I will provide more effective leadership than my opponent.’ “ 1994

# “[Romney] did, however, pledge to support the federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would ban job discrimination based on sexual orientation, and other civil rights protections for gays in the areas of housing and credit. He also promised to bring the initiatives begun in Massachusetts to protect gay and lesbian youth to the federal level.”
- Bay Windows, 3/28/2002

“There will be children born to same-sex couples, and adopted by same-sax couples, and I believe that there should be rights and privileges associated with those unions and with the children that are part of those unions.” On another occasion, his spokesman “declined to state Romney’s position on whether homosexual couples should be allowed to adopt, and declined to say whether the governor opposes gay adoptions.”
- State House press conference, 6/15/2005
- Boston Globe, 3/2/2006

Romney stated, “I feel that all people should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation.” In the same article, a BSA official criticized Romney for opposing Scout policy.
- Boston Globe, 10/27/1994

More recently Romney proposed allocating $250,000 for the Governor’s Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth for fiscal year 2006, twice what he proposed for FY05. The Legislature ultimately funded the commission at $250,000 for FY05, so Romney’s proposal for next year amounts to level funding, and the proposal is still a far cry from $1.6 million the commission received in the mid-’90s before the state budget crisis. Yet as commission co-chair Kathleen Henry said, Romney could just as easily have dissolved the program. “We serve completely at the will of the governor,” said Henry.
- Bay Windows 3/3/2005

Twice after the Legislature approved funding for the Commission, Romney then appeased pro-family activists by vetoing it! However, since there are not enough Republicans to sustain vetoes, a veto is largely a charade.

* When Romney was running against Sen. Ted Kennedy, Bay Windows asked him how he would have voted on an amendment to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act that would ban federal funds from public schools which are “encouraging or supporting homosexuality as a positive lifestyle alternative.” He answered:

“I would have opposed that amendment. I don’t think the federal government has any business dictating to local school boards what their curriculum or practices should be. I think that’s a dangerous precedent in general. I would have opposed that. It also grossly misunderstands the gay community by insinuating that there’s an attempt to proselytize a gay lifestyle on the part of the gay community. I think it’s wrong-headed and unfortunate and hurts the party by being identified with the Republican party.”
- Bay Windows, 8/25/1994

Lopez: “And what about the 1994 letter to the Log Cabin Republicans where you indicated you would support the Federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) and seemed open to changing the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in the military? Are those your positions today?

Gov. Romney: “No. I don’t see the need for new or special legislation. My experience over the past several years as governor has convinced me that ENDA would be an overly broad law that would open a litigation floodgate and unfairly penalize employers at the hands of activist judges…As for military policy and the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy, I trust the counsel of those in uniform who have set these policies over a dozen years ago. I agree with President Bush’s decision to maintain this policy and I would do the same.”
- Interview with National Review, December 14, 2006

In 2002, before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court declared same-sex marriage protected by the Constitution, Romney denounced as “too extreme” the effort by pro-family groups to enact a preemptive state Marriage Protection Amendment prohibiting homosexual marriage, civil unions and same-sex public employee benefits.
- Boston Phoenix, May 14-20, 2004

MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough: “Do you support a national constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage?”

Governor Romney: “Boy, I sure do. You know, that’s a topic that’s really, I think, very important to the country because marriage is not just about adults.

“One issue I want to clarify concerns President Clinton’s “don’t ask, don’t tell, don’t pursue” military policy. I believe that the Clinton compromise was a step in the right direction. I am also convinced that it is the first of a number of steps that will ultimately lead to gays and lesbians being able to serve openly and honestly in our nation’s military. That goal will only be reached when preventing discrimination against gays and lesbians is a mainstream concern, which is a goal we share.”
Sincerely, W. Mitt Romney

“Romney arrived on the scene with great promise, but is leaving the Republican Party here in shambles. Not only are the Republicans yielding the governor’s office for the first time in 16 years, but registered Republicans have fallen by 31,000 since Romney took office, and their legislative presence is at historic lows. But it worked out fine for him: He is now chasing the prize he really covets, the presidency.”
- Boston Globe 11/8/2006

“The Massachusetts Republican Party died last Tuesday. The cause of death: failed leadership. The party is survived by a few leftover legislators and a handful of county officials and grassroots activists who have been ignored for years. Services will be public and a mass exodus of taxpayers will follow. In lieu of flowers, send messages to New Hampshire Republican voters warning them about a certain presidential candidate named Romney.”
- Boston Herald, 11/12/2006

“At a campaign appearance at Brandeis University in June 2002, Romney strongly endorsed stem cell research.”
- Boston Globe, December 17, 2006

“I studied the issue for many months, and entered into conversation with experts from across the nation who were looking for consensus solutions, like Stanford’s Dr. William Hurlbut. In the end, I became persuaded that the stem-cell debate was grounded in a false premise, and that the way through it was around it: by the use of scientific techniques that could produce the equivalent of embryonic stem cells but without cloning, creating, harming, or destroying developing human lives.”
- Governor Mitt Romney, Op-Ed, “A Stem-Cell Solution,” National Review Online, June 15, 2007

“When he ran for governor in 2002, Romney said he supported expanding access to the emergency contraception pill, a high dose of hormones that women can take to prevent pregnancy up to five days after sex . . . On a questionnaire Planned Parenthood gave to the gubernatorial candidates in 2002, Romney answered ‘yes’ to the question, ‘Do you support efforts to increase access to emergency contraception?’ “
- Boston Globe, July 7, 2005

“Yesterday I vetoed a bill that the Legislature forwarded to my desk. Though described by its sponsors as a measure relating to contraception, there is more to it than that. The bill does not involve only the prevention of conception: The drug it authorizes would also terminate life after conception.”
- Governor Mitt Romney, Op-Ed, “Why I Vetoed The Contraception Bill,” Boston Globe, July 26, 2005

He has been on both sides of numerous issues and if there is a core conservative principle in there somewhere, its hard to spot.

sharrukin on September 28, 2011 at 3:30 AM

sharrukin on September 28, 2011 at 3:30 AM

Interesting in many of your quotes come from the Boston Globe or Bay Windows and are either very old and not relevant to his positions since he began his run in 2007 or quotes NOT from Romney at all but a liberal paper stating what they believed his positions to be…He has ALWAYS been on the side of life for one…he as MANY conservatives believe in civil unions but AGAINST defining marriage other than one man and one wife. He vetoed many bills as a conservative GOV in the most blue state there is in the Union. As far as his “Support” of planned parenthood, his wife, Ann, donated, I believe, $150, in the nineties, not likely a show of strong support by Romney.

Overall, go to his website, read his books, commentaries, and you can see what Romney believes…he is not flipping all over the place as many HA posters want you to believe.

He will be a great candidate…you know in many ways it is a good thing Reagan did not run in today’s 24/7 internet blog age as he would be hammered on his beliefs and wouldn’t have stood a chance!

I do appreciate your time and research Sharrukin but disagree with your conclusions on Romney. :o)

g2825m on September 28, 2011 at 3:50 AM

I do appreciate your time and research Sharrukin but disagree with your conclusions on Romney. :o)

g2825m on September 28, 2011 at 3:50 AM

Understandable, just don’t assume its a lack of knowledge of Romney that impels people to look to other candidates. I don’t like Perry for similar reasons. I actually like Romney slightly better than Perry, but that isn’t saying much.

sharrukin on September 28, 2011 at 4:09 AM

As I recall, Reagan’s strength was Indies and Democrats moved to his values. What we have today is a Republican/conservative hoi poloi who believe the only way to win is move towards the left.

And this in a time when the leadership of the Democratic Party is probably as far left as it has ever been.

davod on September 28, 2011 at 5:57 AM

angryed on September 27, 2011 at 10:18 PM

You are truly a buffoon!

To oppose Romney in the primaries is smart, but to oppose WHOEVER the GOP nominee is in the general election is stupid and suicidal. We cannot survive another 4 years of Obama.

Sporty1946 on September 28, 2011 at 7:35 AM

Ronald was a Conservative…….but his other 1/2 was NOT Conservative.

Don’t think he and Nancy didn’t discuss, and she didn’t influence.

Reagan was around 30 years ago.

He would BE DESTROYED by the Lefties in the media today.

PappyD61 on September 28, 2011 at 7:44 AM

Most of the puritans on this site who say they will stay home if Romney is the nominee would have opposed Reagan.

Basilsbest on September 27, 2011 at 10:06 PM

Maybe so. It would probably depend on what his stances would be on today’s issues though. Things were bad when Reagan was elected but nowhere near as dire as they are today. Reagan was tough on some things but on others he got rolled. Raising taxes with a promise to cut spending, amnesty for illegals are a couple that come to mind.

The best thing I remember about Reagan though was that he was able to learn from his mistakes and change his position. A few of today’s candidates, Romney and Perry in particular, have been responsible for enacting some very liberal policies and cannot bring themselves to admit that those positions are bad.

Reagan compromised with liberals but it was usually in working towards a conservative ideal. He didn’t compromise like Boehner does, which is to say, he didn’t compromise for the sake of getting along and not having the media bad things about him.

No matter who the nominee turns out to be, there is no way in hell that I will not vote for the GOP candidate on November 6, 2012!

Sporty1946 on September 28, 2011 at 8:05 AM

He would BE DESTROYED by the Lefties in the media today.

PappyD61 on September 28, 2011 at 7:44 AM

They hated him then and did their best to destroy him. But they failed and they would fail today because he knew how to handle them and wasn’t afraid to make them look foolish with a real sense of class.

Sporty1946 on September 28, 2011 at 8:10 AM

With BO as the alternative, I would vote for Nixon’s old underwear if it was on the ticket. Sitting out an election against BO based on a purity test should serve as the quintessential definition of mental retardation.

David in ATL on September 28, 2011 at 8:33 AM

Reagan was not a perfect conservative, I’ve said that many times. So I’m glad to hear his son say it. A lot of people look at the past with rose-colored glasses where he is concerned. But his optimistic vision for America, and his leadership, was phenomenal. That is what we need right now, not the “perfect record” which is non-existent in the field of electable candidates.

kg598301 on September 28, 2011 at 9:42 AM

The purity police are going to destroy this party. Somebody you agree with 75%-80% of the time is not an OMGZZZ EVIL RINOZZZZ! Get over yourselves already. Nobody is a perfect candidate and there’s no such thing as a 100% pure conservative, and there never has been.

therightwinger

Sounds like you need to take your own advice and THINK.
If they vote with us on lesser issues 75-80% of the time, but vote against us 20-25% on the most critical issues, they are not our ally.
Try improving your deep thinking capabilities rather than mindlessly projecting your own shortcomings onto others.

Hard Right on September 28, 2011 at 9:43 AM

Keep your eyes on the prize people.

Defeat Obama.

If we run My Pet Goat on the ballot in 2012, as long as it has an “R” after its name, it gets my vote.

Old Fritz on September 28, 2011 at 9:46 AM

All of the republican candidates have baggage. i will, however, vote for whomever i have to in order to defeat Obama in ’12. THAT is my goal. I will NOT stay home on election day. There is too much at stake to give Obama and the communist party four more years. only if Satan himself gets the republican nomination will I have to draw the line. but that’s not likely to happen as the democrats already have a lock on him.
Reagan is dead and buried. we wont see another like him in our lifetime. Time to move on.

abcurtis on September 28, 2011 at 2:50 PM

All of the republican candidates have baggage. i will, however, vote for whomever i have to in order to defeat Obama in ’12. THAT is my goal. I will NOT stay home on election day.

abcurtis on September 28, 2011 at 2:50 PM

and this is the only rational approach…

jimver on September 28, 2011 at 3:34 PM

The purity police are going to destroy this party. Somebody you agree with 75%-80% of the time is not an OMGZZZ EVIL RINOZZZZ! Get over yourselves already. Nobody is a perfect candidate and there’s no such thing as a 100% pure conservative, and there never has been.

therightwinger

75% wouldn’t exactly place you on the “right wing”, would it? If I have the math correct, it would place you exactly in the middle of the “right” side of the aisle. As for some 75% RINO, you go have fun finding votes for the various ACU-rated 75 percenters:

Murkowski, Lugar, and Brown

Jaibones on September 28, 2011 at 6:04 PM

No one understood what we were up against better than Reagan. His A Time For Choosing speech rings as true today as it did fifty years ago. Is there a single candidate saying any of this stuff?

The Mega Independent on September 27, 2011 at 8:29 PM

There is someone saying all of those things. Not one of the candidates, no. That really needs to change.

Freelancer on September 28, 2011 at 9:24 PM

We’ve been burned too many times, so we’re very watchful.

If a guy spouts Democrat talking points that we’re heartless for opposing in-state tuition fees for illegals, we look elsewhere.

We can get that kind of crap from millions of Democrats for free, we don’t need to donate and work hard electing it into positions of power to be burned once again.

RJL on September 28, 2011 at 10:01 PM

I ain’t sellin nuttin. Those of you who are staying home if Romney is the nominee are obviously buying Obama.

Basilsbest on September 27, 2011 at 10:30 PM

Nope, if Romney is the candidate I’ll write in Sarah Palin for President.

We can’t afford any more rinos and when it’s their own skin even Republican politicians are capable of learning.

When Bush 41 lost what should have been an easy reelection after he raised taxes and signed gun control you would have said it was horrible and you’d be mostly correct, but Republican politicians did learn. Few if any Republicans are raising taxes or signing gun control. So we made progress.

If we lose what should be an easy Presidential election in 2012 because the NE establishment forced another rino on us, it will be very painful but others will learn and again we’ll make progress. Painful as it will be, it’ll be much better than being betrayed by rinos again and again.

RJL on September 28, 2011 at 10:19 PM

well for the Libtard Ron Paul portion of the GOP, yes….

TheQuestion on September 27, 2011 at 8:14 PM

Today the right would of called Reagan a danger to America for not committing 100,000 troops to route out all the fanatical Lebanese in the 80′s.

V-rod on September 29, 2011 at 1:36 AM

Comment pages: 1 2