You’re no Ronald Reagan

posted at 4:30 pm on January 29, 2012 by Karl

The kerfuffle over Newt Gingrich’s status as a Reagan Republican will be a footnote to the 2012 campaign at most. But that does not mean we cannot learn from it.

On the surface, this is a silly issue. Last week, Mitt Romney was painting Gingrich as a minor figure of the Reagan revolution. This week ended with the following exchange during the CNN debate:

Wolf Blitzer: Governor Romney, you criticized Speaker Gingrich for not being as close to Ronald Reagan as he says he was. When you ran for the Senate, you said you were, quote, “You weren’t trying to return to Reagan-Bush.”

So the question is, do you think you can claim the Reagan mantle more than Speaker Gingrich?

Romney: Oh, of course not. ***

Romney then recited his biography, selectively omitting the 1994 Senate race which occasioned Mitt’s remark distancing himself from Reagan-Bush (a ticket which won Massachusetts twice). It’s an answer which tells the observant that Team Romney figured out this was a dumb line of attack (Newt can be unconservative, but Romney is not going to win an argument about Reagan). It also tells the observant that even after fumbling Mitt’s money issues, Team Romney was still capable of not recognizing that their attack would backfire in the first instance (Newt also launches attacks that boomerang, but Mitt is the one with the supposedly superior staff and organization).

While Team Romney was figuring this out, a scrum of conservative punditry ensued. Notably, Elliott Abrams (an assistant secretary of state under Reagan) attacked Gingrich for not having been sufficiently supportive of Reagan’s foreign policy. Jeffrey Lord (a former Reagan White House political director) defended Gingrich as one of Reagan’s best lieutenants, including the story of how Newt helped keep a firm line against tax increases in the 1984 platform against the likes of Bob Dole and Lowell Weicker. Lord later claimed that Abrams had never complained about Gingrich at the time and distorted Gingrich’s comments on Reagan’s foreign policy. Rich Lowry then went after Lord for smearing Abrams as jockeying for a job in a Romney administration and for providing only partial context of Gingrich’s foreign policy remarks.

So far, it appears that Lowry is correct that Lord has no evidence that Abrams was sucking up to Team Romney for a job. Moreover, the Abrams piece could easily have been a simple act of score-settling. I would not be surprised if Abrams and others in the Reagan administration were less than thrilled at Gingrich’s criticism at the time and feel vindicated by history (although history is not a controlled experiment, thus precluding a definitive judgment on the matter). However, Lord correctly notes (as does Reagan biographer Steven Hayward) that Gingrich was hardly a lone critic of Reagan’s foreign policy at the time in question. Newt cited George Will, Charles Krauthammer, Irving Kristol, and Jeane Kirkpatrick in his speech, while Hayward lists others, including Howard Phillips, Jack Kemp, George Will and William Safire.

The scrum demonstrates why Team Romney is running from the subject. The record tends to show that Gingrich backed Reagan on key issues and when he did critique the administration, he did so from the right. “More right-wing than Reagan in the ’80s” is not the frame Romney wants for Gingrich.

What can we learn from this episode (beyond the fact that Team Romney still has some bugs to work out)?

The reason that the right would spend a week discussing Gingrich’s connection to Reagan legacy is a testament to how much Reagan shaped the conservative movement and today’s GOP. By holding Reagan up as the ideal, he and his administration have become idealized — and it would serve us all well to be more clear-eyed about history here.

This episode is a timely reminder that the Reagan GOP was an occasionally fractious coalition. To moderates, Reaganomics was voodoo, while Reagan’s confrontational foreign policy seemed unconservative. Reagan was a politician who pushed the envelope… but his coalition also contained those who wanted to push it further.

It should be remembered that Reagan got to elected president as the result of many factors. He had experience running for president. He was an able and charismatic performer as a candidate, capable of disarming his critics with a down-to-earth chuckle as easily as a pointed barb. Stagflation had exposed the flaws of Keynesian economics. Iran and the Soviet Union exposed the impotence of Jimmy Carter’s foreign policy. Reagan’s election was as close to a perfect storm as one is likely to find in politics.

This year, the GOP remains a fractious coalition, but its candidate will be no Ronald Reagan. (Occasionally, Ronald Reagan was no Ronald Reagan.) Moreover, if America is lucky, the economy and state of the world will not make Barack Obama look as bad as Jimmy Carter. It is by those parameters that GOP primary voters should be making their choice, rather than hoping a perfect storm rolls in.

This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.


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

GALLUPUSATODAY POLL OF SWING STATES:

Obama 47% Romney 48%
Obama 50% Paul 43%
Obama 51% Santorum 44%
Obama 54% Gingrich 40%

haner on January 29, 2012 at 5:00 PM

So………..swing states see no difference between Obama and Romney?

Talon on January 29, 2012 at 6:01 PM

He’s aged well.

JPeterman on January 29, 2012 at 5:59 PM

And, kept his hair!

massrighty on January 29, 2012 at 6:01 PM

Newt’s amnesty paln – and that’s exactly what it is – eventually will destroy the country.

It doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to fight to save the country from Obama only to see it become a third world hell hole.

bw222 on January 29, 2012 at 5:18 PM

You don’t get out much do you, dear?

CorporatePiggy on January 29, 2012 at 5:22 PM

bw is exactly right. Newt is the enemy on amnesty. He is the main reason E-Verify isn’t mandatory and it is in spite of him that it exists at all. Newt is the lover of illegals and should not be allowed to win.

Igor R. on January 29, 2012 at 6:02 PM

ABO except for Paul.
annoyinglittletwerp on January 29, 2012 at 5:57 PM

Well, since he doesn’t stand any chance of getting the nomination and even less chance of winning a general election, I feel safe in saying I’d pull the lever for the Crazy Uncle against O.

whatcat on January 29, 2012 at 6:03 PM

He’s aged well.

JPeterman on January 29, 2012 at 5:59 PM

And, kept his hair!

massrighty on January 29, 2012 at 6:01 PM

Well John Voight has endorsed him. Didn’t he do a documentary on the event?

Igor R. on January 29, 2012 at 6:04 PM

This year, the GOP remains a fractious coalition, but its candidate will be no Ronald Reagan.

Romney makes Nelson Rockefeller look like a right winger …

besser tot als rot on January 29, 2012 at 6:15 PM

Zelsdorf Ragshaft on January 29, 2012 at 5:53 PM

A question I asked yesterday if there is any connection between Mariann Gingrich and Romney camp?

It was very suspicious the timing of that whole thing.

evergreenland on January 29, 2012 at 6:23 PM

Romney makes Nelson Rockefeller look like a right winger …

besser tot als rot on January 29, 2012 at 6:15 PM

So does Newt.

Slainte on January 29, 2012 at 6:29 PM

Romney makes Nelson Rockefeller look like a right winger …

besser tot als rot on January 29, 2012 at 6:15 PM

So does Newt.

Slainte on January 29, 2012 at 6:29 PM

Tell that to Nancy and Michael.

Talon on January 29, 2012 at 6:38 PM

Romney makes Nelson Rockefeller look like a right winger …
besser tot als rot on January 29, 2012 at 6:15 PM

So does Newt.
Slainte on January 29, 2012 at 6:29 PM

With Newt having confessed to being a “Rockefeller Republican” and his having worked for ol’ Nelson against Goldwater, it’s pretty much two peas in a pod.

whatcat on January 29, 2012 at 6:38 PM

So does Newt.

Slainte on January 29, 2012 at 6:29 PM

Oh please. Both Romneyites and Paulites/Santorians want people to think there’s no difference between Newt and Mitt. Could not be further from the truth.

alwaysfiredup on January 29, 2012 at 6:40 PM

I think the Obama team is salivating at a run against either Mitt or Newt. Newt’s negatives are too high; he will never carry right of center independents. Mitt is 4 more years of the same governing that got us into this mess (aka GW, aka Wall Street bankers run the govt).

Focus on maintaining the majority in the House. Work like hell to get a majority in the Senate. Elect more small government/Tea Party members to Congress.

Hold on till 2016 for Rand Paul.

Jurassic P on January 29, 2012 at 7:03 PM

annoyinglittletwerp on January 29, 2012 at 5:45 PM

Nice!
When I was 12, our family went through West Berlin to see East Berlin. Never forgot the difference between the two halfs, and what it took to enter and leave. When Reagan said “Tear down this Wall”…it hit me hard! We went to some kind of museum there, that told of all the escapes and attempts to get out of East Germany. It left a lifetime impression on me.

KOOLAID2 on January 29, 2012 at 7:08 PM

bw is exactly right. Newt is the enemy on amnesty. He is the main reason E-Verify isn’t mandatory and it is in spite of him that it exists at all. Newt is the lover of illegals and should not be allowed to win.

Igor R. on January 29, 2012 at 6:02 PM

Didn’t you support Perry?

astonerii on January 29, 2012 at 7:18 PM

We went to some kind of museum there, that told of all the escapes and attempts to get out of East Germany. It left a lifetime impression on me.

KOOLAID2 on January 29, 2012 at 7:08 PM

That would have been the Mauermuseum, about 1 block east of Check Point Charley.

JPeterman on January 29, 2012 at 7:19 PM

Their selfishness (and stupidity) has already resulted not only in the worst President in US History, but a babbling 5-time Draft Dodger Vice President, the most corrupt Attorney General in American history, and two Far Left Supreme Court Justices. If O’bama gets 2 or 3 more SCOTUS Justices, it’s all over.

Only an idiot would consciously ask for more of the same.

Del Dolemonte on January 29, 2012 at 5:55 PM

Listen twerp I knocked on doors for Reagan in 1980, won lots of money betting on him to win. Worked on phone banks for Reagan, and W. Gave enough money to buy myself a real nice bike and voted R every single time. What did it get me?

Under W I got to fight against 3 different attempts at Amnesty, I got saddled with No Child Left Behind, Prescription Drug benefit and the Patriot act which the left is using, predictably to grope my children, invade my privacy and I am just getting warmed up.

An article that Hot Air never saw fit to link to explains my position perfectly and explains my predicament perfect.

America’s Ruling Class — And the Perils of Rev*&^tion (dumbass censor on what used to be a great site forced that bad spelling.)

Btw all this crap about Reagan not being all of that is a bunch of manure spewed by either youngsters who are too young and/or stupid to know better or a bunch of bitter old schmucks who didn’t want him to actually cut the government. He did what he could…which is more than Romney would ever do. And yes Newt is no Reagan but he is closer to him than Romney and in these bitter times that is the best we can hope for.

Finally I will vote in the 2012 election but it will be for anyone but Romney. I will not vote for him and I will not support republican fundraising efforts. They are frustrated with me when they call I tell them frankly that I am waiting to see who is nominated…if Romney is nominated they can kiss my ass for funds for the rest of the short time this country lasts.

PierreLegrand on January 29, 2012 at 7:23 PM

PierreLegrand on January 29, 2012 at 7:23 PM

Great post.

astonerii on January 29, 2012 at 7:34 PM

PierreLegrand on January 29, 2012 at 7:23 PM

Ditto.

I will be standing next to you and astonerii……line in the sand.

Talon on January 29, 2012 at 7:56 PM

GALLUPUSATODAY POLL OF SWING STATES:

Obama 47% Romney 48%
Obama 50% Paul 43%
Obama 51% Santorum 44%
Obama 54% Gingrich 40%

haner on January 29, 2012 at 5:00 PM
So………..swing states see no difference between Obama and Romney?

Talon on January 29, 2012 at 6:01 PM

But they do see a difference between Obama and Newt, and they dislike Newt a lot more than they dislike Obama.

talkingpoints on January 29, 2012 at 8:06 PM

PierreLegrand on January 29, 2012 at 7:23 PM

Couldn’t have said it better myself.

noneoftheabove on January 29, 2012 at 8:08 PM

PierreLegrand on January 29, 2012 at 7:23 PM

While I will not vote for Obama I too will have a very hard time voting for Romney, maybe impossible. The explanation on Romneycare is just plain BS, weather it’s a State or Federal mandate is just BS and it’s wrong and does not work and the fact that he can’t see it or won’t admit it makes him dangerous.

whbates on January 29, 2012 at 8:18 PM

Newt is no Reagan but he is closer to him than Romney and in these bitter times that is the best we can hope for.
PierreLegrand on January 29, 2012 at 7:23 PM

Lessee here; if you can’t have the guy who will massively lose to Obama and keep in him the Oval Office, you’ll vote – hook or by crook – to keep Obama in the Oval Office anyway. Yeah, sounds like a plan to me.

whatcat on January 29, 2012 at 8:36 PM

Lessee here; if you can’t have the guy who will massively lose to Obama and keep in him the Oval Office, you’ll vote – hook or by crook – to keep Obama in the Oval Office anyway. Yeah, sounds like a plan to me.

whatcat on January 29, 2012 at 8:36 PM

All of the spoiled brats are going to hold their breath, stamp their feet and throw a tantrum just because they can’t get their way. It’s an astounding display of selfishness that they think so little of this great country and with their actions, they will once again have the potential of giving us 4 more years of Obama.

JPeterman on January 29, 2012 at 8:45 PM

and they dislike Newt a lot more than they dislike Obama.

talkingpoints on January 29, 2012 at 8:06 PM

Are you freaking serious?!?!?

Do you REALLY believe that Americans will choose the disastrous course they are currently on before Newt Gingrich?!?!?!!

PROVE to me the demographic of that “poll”….I say it’s bullshit until then.

The Republican establishment knows Obama is a goner in 2012…no matter who runs….THEY just want to be the ones controlling the money.

Well FU(* you and the horses you rode in on. I want my country back……….Mitt Romney doesn’t. Sooo…….FU&^ him too…..

Talon on January 29, 2012 at 8:47 PM

All of the spoiled brats are going to hold their breath, stamp their feet and throw a tantrum just because they can’t get their way. It’s an astounding display of selfishness that they think so little of this great country and with their actions, they will once again have the potential of giving us 4 more years of Obama.

JPeterman on January 29, 2012 at 8:45 PM

Like they did with John McCain?!?! I voted for that stupid sonofabitch and I got Obama!!

Now you want to shove Romney down our throats and if that jackass loses it will be MY fault again?!?!?!?

Spoiled brat eh?!?! Don’t I have to have been given something for nothing to be a spoiled brat?!?!

GFYS!!!!!!!!

Talon on January 29, 2012 at 8:52 PM

JPeterman on January 29, 2012 at 8:45 PM

Seriously, you’re going with that name calling crap just because there are people who don’t like your candidate? And you will wonder why he will lose. I know you said you came from another country, I don’t know when, but I do know that when Newt was speaker, I was a bonifide democrat for Clinton and I thought Newt was too conservative. Romney, not so much. I’ve “aged” since then and I want the most conservative candidate I can have, it isn’t Mitt. I won’t be voting for Mittens, never. It is MY vote, and all of yours and anyone else BULLYING and name calling won’t change that.In fact, it makes me not want to vote for him even more.

noneoftheabove on January 29, 2012 at 8:54 PM

All of the spoiled brats are going to hold their breath, stamp their feet and throw a tantrum just because they can’t get their way. It’s an astounding display of selfishness that they think so little of this great country and with their actions, they will once again have the potential of giving us 4 more years of Obama.
JPeterman on January 29, 2012 at 8:45 PM

Some people actually believe their personal butthurts and emotional confusion are the most important things in the universe. They just have incredible difficulty getting over themselves – hence their fair-weather, sunshine patriot routine. But the overwhelming majority of voters are not chronic complainer crybabies; they know there are the times where you have to grow up, take off the short pants and put on the big boy britches.

whatcat on January 29, 2012 at 8:56 PM

Hold on till 2016 for Rand Paul.

Jurassic P on January 29, 2012 at 7:03 PM

Get Ron to the convention with enough delegates, and you might not have to wait until 2016.

JohnGalt23 on January 29, 2012 at 9:10 PM

Seriously, you’re going with that name calling crap just because there are people who don’t like your candidate? And you will wonder why he will lose.
noneoftheabove on January 29, 2012 at 8:54 PM

It has absolutely nothing to do with who my candidate is or isn’t and the primary will be long over by the time I get to vote. And for the record, I’m not a Mitt supporter.

I lived behind the Iron Curtain under the tyranny of Communism. Sorry if it offends you that I take my vote seriously and that I would never think to stay home after working so hard to earn it.

JPeterman on January 29, 2012 at 9:10 PM

JPeterman on January 29, 2012 at 9:10 PM

And most people “won’t stay home”. Usually what they mean is that they won’t vote that top spot, they’ll write in a name, go 3rd party, but they’ll vote down tickets. So no, staying home isn’t usually the option. And I’ll still stand by my remarks about name calling. You may have lived under the tyranny of Communism, but that doesn’t give you or anyone else the right to be a bully or even begin to call them selfish. My son is deployed as of now on his 8th tour. I think I’ve given enough to this country so please, don’t throw the word “selfish” out around me. I don’t appreciate it and I’ll still vote for who I damn well want to. He’s help to give me that right.

noneoftheabove on January 29, 2012 at 9:17 PM

JohnGalt23 on January 29, 2012 at 9:10 PM

RP is starting to look better to me every day. Even as short as two years ago I would have thought that was crazy talk. lol

noneoftheabove on January 29, 2012 at 9:19 PM

And most people “won’t stay home”. Usually what they mean is that they won’t vote that top spot, they’ll write in a name, go 3rd party, but they’ll vote down tickets. So no, staying home isn’t usually the option.
noneoftheabove on January 29, 2012 at 9:17 PM

If someone’s decalring s/he going to vote against the Republican nominee WTH are they even venting here? Makes absolutely no sense at all. If they were kvetching on some kind of a Whatver-Something-Whocares “Third” Party site that might at least make some sense.

whatcat on January 29, 2012 at 9:25 PM

So………..swing states see no difference between Obama and Romney?

Talon on January 29, 2012 at 6:01 PM

Yep that’s what close polls mean. Florida thought Al Gore and George Bush were the same person too. Your logic is fantastic.

Kriggly on January 29, 2012 at 9:26 PM

whatcat on January 29, 2012 at 9:25 PM

So this is Romney central? Gee I thought people were allowed to make up their minds on their own, but now I hear that Romney has been crowned and everyone else needs to get on another site. Only Romney supporters are allowed to vent on this site, got it. Thanks for the clarification.

noneoftheabove on January 29, 2012 at 9:29 PM

It has absolutely nothing to do with who my candidate is or isn’t and the primary will be long over by the time I get to vote. And for the record, I’m not a Mitt supporter.

I lived behind the Iron Curtain under the tyranny of Communism. Sorry if it offends you that I take my vote seriously and that I would never think to stay home after working so hard to earn it.

JPeterman on January 29, 2012 at 9:10 PM

Too many conservative ideologues prioritize principles over reality. It’s a sad state of affairs that runs counter to the central principle of pragmatism.

Kriggly on January 29, 2012 at 9:31 PM

Kriggly on January 29, 2012 at 9:31 PM

Independent here dude. Was a card carrying voting democrat for over 35 years, although I did vote a few times for Republicans. I voted for Bush when we put up Kerry and I voted for Reagan and McCain . You guys have put up Kerry and you seem content to have doing so. I didn’t vote for Kerry when he was part of my party, I’m sure hell not voting for his “brother” being an independent. And I’m independent since neither party gives a damn about this country, just want to change the heads of the powerful committees.

noneoftheabove on January 29, 2012 at 9:36 PM

whatcat on January 29, 2012 at 9:25 PM

So this is Romney central? Gee I thought people were allowed to make up their minds on their own, but now I hear that Romney has been crowned and everyone else needs to get on another site. Only Romney supporters are allowed to vent on this site, got it. Thanks for the clarification.
noneoftheabove on January 29, 2012 at 9:29 PM

You were talking about voting against the Republican nominee. I mentioned no name and, in fact, all of the candidates have noted that any of them would be better than Obama. So, if you’re voting against the Republican candidate, why would you be here in the first place? We already got enough liberal trolls who make the very same declaration of intent.

whatcat on January 29, 2012 at 9:39 PM

whatcat on January 29, 2012 at 9:39 PM

Go back and read, my response was about the name calling that’s going on from Mittens supporters. If somehow people don’t want to vote for Mitt then they’re “selfish”. That word pisses me off more than anything. How dare the bots claim that just because they don’t like Romney, they’re going to try and “bully” them into feeling bad. You know, I saw this same kind of crap during 08 when Obama supporters would claim that if you weren’t going to vote for O, you were somehow racist, bigoted, bible thumping, card carrying, gun toting redneck. So geez, I guess Romney is more like Obama than I first thought. Just look at his supporters. I guess you guys think that it worked with him, so let’s go scorched earth on your side too.

Like I’ve said over and over again, I’m an independent, I’m still looking at candidates and I’m not satisified. So sue me. Or ridicule me, I don’t really give a rat’s ass.

noneoftheabove on January 29, 2012 at 9:47 PM

whatcat on January 29, 2012 at 9:39 PM

Go back and read, my response was about the name calling that’s going on from Mittens supporters. If somehow people don’t want to vote for Mitt then they’re “selfish”.

You desperately keep on trying to make it about one candidate. However, the “I’m gonna stomp my feet, hold my breath and throw my toys if things don’t turn out exactly as I wish” types are, by definition, indeed the epitome of selfish. They could serve as the pic next to the word “selfish” in the dictionary.

I’m an independent

So which other other forums do you go into to complain about the candidates? There’s a wide spectrum of political sites on the internet from far right to far left, along with all sorts of “third way” places to complain and vent.

whatcat on January 29, 2012 at 9:59 PM

Go back and read, my response was about the name calling that’s going on from Mittens supporters. If somehow people don’t want to vote for Mitt then they’re “selfish”.

noneoftheabove on January 29, 2012 at 9:47 PM

Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Please show me where I said “I’m a Mitt supporter”. Or for that matter, please point to me where “whatcat” said the same thing.

Good luck in your search for those statements and your perfect candidate.

JPeterman on January 29, 2012 at 10:08 PM

whatcat on January 29, 2012 at 9:59 PM

I”ve said this before, but I was for Romney in 2008. When he suspended his campaign, the fallout on his blog site was tremendous. If you want to describe the word selfish, then they were the poster boys for selfishness. I, however, went to work on McCain’s campaign. Made calls, distributed flyers, whatever was needed. I had worked on Clinton’s campaign when he was running against Bush, and had worked on many local and state campaigns. So I knew in order to beat Obama, someone had to work. How many on this site did that? How many on here were whining? If Romney doesn’t get the nomination, will you whine. You seem to act as though complaining about the candidates is something new when in fact over the last 3 years of reading HA, that’s all that’s been done.
Do you own this site or are you just being obtuse because you can’t sway me to vote a certain way. Well let me put your concerns to bed, I WON’T be voting for Obama, didn’t the last time. But as far as the candidates that are up now, I can’t promise that I’ll pull a lever for anyone of them. Still a long way to go and they all have scars. I will say though that since I work in healthcare, Romneycare/Obamacare is a non starter for me. And no, I don’t care if it’s state or federal mandated because it’s not right at either level.

If you don’t like the fact that independents don’t like Romney, then cry to someone else. Romney, Newt or who ever, will need independents in order to win. I’d think that instead of trying to crucify me for being on this site, you’d be glad that I’m taking the time to engage with other conservatives. Isn’t that how one learns the other?

noneoftheabove on January 29, 2012 at 10:14 PM

Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Please show me where I said “I’m a Mitt supporter”. Or for that matter, please point to me where “whatcat” said the same thing.
Good luck in your search for those statements and your perfect candidate.
JPeterman on January 29, 2012 at 10:08 PM

I think some folks just get so caught up in emotionalism that they can’t see clearly. Hence the raging against strawmen and boogymen that just aren’t there.

whatcat on January 29, 2012 at 10:16 PM

JPeterman on January 29, 2012 at 10:08 PM

The only ones who have been calling other people selfish on this site have been Romney supporters. It’s a “get in line” or shut up manifesto. And there is no perfect candidate, but I will vote for the one that matches more to my liking, not yours. You do the same, k?

noneoftheabove on January 29, 2012 at 10:17 PM

whatcat on January 29, 2012 at 10:16 PM

lol and some people think too highly of theirselves and their opinion. Like I said, have at it with Romney and good luck. Maybe he’s the right one and maybe he’s not…….

noneoftheabove on January 29, 2012 at 10:19 PM

you can’t sway me to vote a certain way.

You’ve already stated your intentions, so it would make no sense to do so anyway.

If you don’t like the fact that independents don’t like Romney, then cry to someone else.
noneoftheabove on January 29, 2012 at 10:14 PM

You’re making an you=everybody argument. You might want to check the data re: the independent vote and the candidates.

whatcat on January 29, 2012 at 10:28 PM

whatcat on January 29, 2012 at 10:28 PM

Guess we’ll see then won’t we? And no, you’re right, I’ve said that no one can make me vote a certain way. Are you more easily swayed? lol

noneoftheabove on January 29, 2012 at 10:35 PM

Guess we’ll see then won’t we?

Yup. It’ll all shake out when all’s said and done.

And no, you’re right, I’ve said that no one can make me vote a certain way. Are you more easily swayed? lol
noneoftheabove on January 29, 2012 at 10:35 PM

Nope. I’m going with whomever the eventual Republican nominee to take Obama down.

whatcat on January 29, 2012 at 10:52 PM

Things had been so rough during the Carter years, what with the economy really in the dumps and the humiliation of the Iran Hostage Crisis nipping hard on the heals of a lackluster Ford Administration and the trauma of Watergate and the lingering bile from Vietnam…

Things were dark when we turned to Reagan. With him as our leader, it really was morning in America.

*sigh*

turfmann on January 29, 2012 at 4:40 PM

Speaking about Ford, you need to remember that he was handed an incredibly bad political sitiation and had little time to sort it out. Yes, “WIN” was a fiasco, but I also remember the Mayaguez, which definitely was not. Not our greatest president, but I think a full term would have proven him far better than he is normally credited with.

BillH on January 30, 2012 at 2:21 PM

Comment pages: 1 2