Republicans need this type of voice

[Reaganfan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Y5_q-rWMkg

That video shows the type of voice Republicans need to win. From 1981 to 1993, then from 2001 to 2009, we had Republican leadership that carried a strong message of freedom, democracy, ect.

The only 2012 candidate I can see doing that is Mitt Romney. Am I wrong? I mean, Haley Barbour and Mike Huckabee would be good contenders, but we need that message.

[Reaganfan]

Did the Democrats spend thirty years constantly dredging up FDR rather than finding new leadership?

Who said anything about dredging up? George W. Bush rarely referenced Reagan or his father when running.

[Reaganfan]

What would Haley Barbour's message be? "I promise not to turn the US into a third world country like Mississippi is"?

Hmm last time I checked Mississippi got the worst part of the worst natural disaster in our countrie's history and didn't piss and moan like a bunch of children about the Government not bailing them out.

[Reaganfan]

Reagan was a total douche, one of the worst presidents in our history.

George H. W. Bush was an okay president, better than most Republicans.

Bush.... well he is the worst of ANY president.

Reagan was by far our greatest President of the 20th Century, and George H.W. Bush was also one of the greatest.

[Reaganfan]

I think you're missing the point of this thread.  Naso is talking about the"voice" the GOP needs, and the video shows how the last 3 Republican Presidents were able to communicate effectively.   

If the Democratic Party had nominated far superior candidates rather than Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis there is a very good chance that both Reagan and Bush could have been defeated. It might be wishful thinking on my behalf, but you Republicans have those nominees of the Democratic Party to thank for your "greatest" President's.

Seriously! The Democrats practically handed the GOP the Presidency in the '80s with those weak candidates.

They weren't that weak. I mean, Carter was a President of the United States, Mondale was an experienced Senator and former Vice President, and Dukakis...well...he was the Massachusetts "Miracle" and a Governor.

I actually think that Bush Sr. could have been re-elected back in 1992 had he run his re-election campaign more like his son did in 2004. It would have been close, but he could have pulled it off. He didn't really seem to wanna even try.

[Reaganfan]

Best Presidents of the 20th Century

1. Ronald Reagan
2. Harry Truman
3. Franklin D. Roosevelt
4. Richard Nixon
5. George H.W. Bush
6. Calvin Coolidge
7. Teddy Roosevelt
8. Dwight D. Eisenhower
9. John F. Kennedy
10. William McKinley

[Reaganfan]

I think you're missing the point of this thread.  Naso is talking about the"voice" the GOP needs, and the video shows how the last 3 Republican Presidents were able to communicate effectively.   

If the Democratic Party had nominated far superior candidates rather than Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis there is a very good chance that both Reagan and Bush could have been defeated. It might be wishful thinking on my behalf, but you Republicans have those nominees of the Democratic Party to thank for your "greatest" President's.

Seriously! The Democrats practically handed the GOP the Presidency in the '80s with those weak candidates.

They weren't that weak. I mean, Carter was a President of the United States, Mondale was an experienced Senator and former Vice President, and Dukakis...well...he was the Massachusetts "Miracle" and a Governor.

I actually think that Bush Sr. could have been re-elected back in 1992 had he run his re-election campaign more like his son did in 2004. It would have been close, but he could have pulled it off. He didn't really seem to wanna even try.

How could it have been close? Clinton won by over five million votes.

Bush could have ran for re-election on Foreign Policy and fought harder on the economy.

RE-ELECT BUSH. PROVEN STRENGTH. Ect, ect. There was none of that. No effort. '92, even with the recession, could have been a cakewalk for Bush/Quayle, especially with a flawed candidate like Clinton. I understand he is a good politician...but if Bush would have run on his foreign policy success, and rallied the base, he could have retained the White House for four more years.

Wow...George H.W. Bush could have been President still in 1997...strange.

[Reaganfan]

Wow...George H.W. Bush could have been President still in 1997...strange.

Yeah, for nineteen and a half days, then President Dole!

Quayle

I can't imagine him even winning the nomination.

Probably not.  Wasn't there a movement to replace Quayle with Dole on the '92 ticket?

Some talk in 1992 of a Bush/Baker or a Bush/Cheney (funny, huh?) ticket, but it never got much traction.

Infact, there was an article I read in Time magazine following the Gulf War success in 1990/1991, and it noted how the re-election of Bush and Quayle was "very likely" and how the 90s would be remembered as "The Bush Era".

Who would have known...