If Reagan were running for President today...

[redcommander]

I would say yes. The man so many Conservatives love to idolize was pro-Abortion and pro-gay rights as California's governor, in favor of amnesty for illegal immigrants, in favor of raising taxes when necessary for revenue increases, and was willing to use military intervention to interfere in governments he thought were unfriendly to American interests (Grenada, Lebanon, Nicaragua, El Salvador, etc.).

[Simfan34]

Of course, that's as close to a fact an subjective thing can get.

[Yelnoc]

Yes of course, as we decided in the last dozen threads on the subject.

[Reaganfan]

Yes. Standards are way too high. It's like when you see a gorgeous girl and your friends say, "You must have low standards" and you think...if that's having low standards...what the hell is having high standards?

[The_Texas_Libertarian]

Absolutely, however the cult-of-personality would overshadow everything among the base and rightward leaning independents so he would easily secure the nomination.

However if 100% of Reagan's stances and ideologies and history were transplanted onto someone who wasn't Ronald Reagan they would likely only get as far being a non-Romney of the month merely to get tossed aside later in the campaign season.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I would say yes. The man so many Conservatives love to idolize was pro-Abortion and pro-gay rights as California's governor, in favor of amnesty for illegal immigrants, in favor of raising taxes when necessary for revenue increases, and was willing to use military intervention to interfere in governments he thought were unfriendly to American interests (Grenada, Lebanon, Nicaragua, El Salvador, etc.).

can you detail Reagan's "pro-Abortion and pro-gay rights" policies, please?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I would say yes. The man so many Conservatives love to idolize was pro-Abortion and pro-gay rights as California's governor, in favor of amnesty for illegal immigrants, in favor of raising taxes when necessary for revenue increases, and was willing to use military intervention to interfere in governments he thought were unfriendly to American interests (Grenada, Lebanon, Nicaragua, El Salvador, etc.).

can you detail Reagan's "pro-Abortion and pro-gay rights" policies, please?

until we get an answer to the above, here is a Reagan's position on Abortion during Spring 1983:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://old.nationalreview.com/document/reagan200406101030.asp

[Mechaman]

I would say yes. The man so many Conservatives love to idolize was pro-Abortion and pro-gay rights as California's governor, in favor of amnesty for illegal immigrants, in favor of raising taxes when necessary for revenue increases, and was willing to use military intervention to interfere in governments he thought were unfriendly to American interests (Grenada, Lebanon, Nicaragua, El Salvador, etc.).

And you think so-called "Conservatives" are opposed to military interventionism?  Why the hell do you think there are only a couple of Republicans who dare even mention reducing military spending then?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

on Abortion, what exactly are we talking about here?  Are we discussing the bill Reagan signed as governor in 1967 that allowed abortions for the well-being of the mother?

If so, this is a total straw man, for that was before the courts "interpreted" the well-being of the mother to mean anything they wanted it to mean...which is why new proposed laws have been narrowed to the explicitly state the life of the mother.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

as far as gays are concerned, while Reagan didn't want them excluded for working in public schools as the Brigg's Initiative wanted, he had this to say about teaching that homosexuality is acceptable:

“I don’t approve of teaching a so-called gay life style in our schools, but there is already adequate legal machinery to deal with such problems if and when they arise.”

---

to say that Reagan's past pubic policy positions on abortion and gays is different than the current public policy positions of the jmfcsts is plain laughable.

[memphis]

Here's the deal with Reagan. His background was in Hollywood, where he had been prez of the Screen Actors Guild (the actor's union). Then he was gov'r of Commiefornia, where he raised state taxes to balance the budget and waffled on the abortion bill. He signed it and then expressed regret. You can't be a Hollywood union boss, California tax-raising gov'r, and flip-flopper on an abortion bill and still get the GOP base on board. He'd be exactly where Romney is, where there's an off chance if you can get the hard line conservatives split just right. There's also the whole divorce thing, but the GOP base doesn't actually care about family issues. It's just a smokescreen for dumbs during the general.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Here's the deal with Reagan. His background was in Hollywood, where he had been prez of the Screen Actors Guild (the actor's union). Then he was gov'r of Commiefornia, where he raised state taxes to balance the budget and waffled on the abortion bill. He signed it and then expressed regret. You can't be a Hollywood union boss, California tax-raising gov'r, and flip-flopper on an abortion bill and still get the GOP base on board. He'd be exactly where Romney is, where there's an off chance if you can get the hard line conservatives split just right. There's also the whole divorce thing, but the GOP base doesn't actually care about family issues. It's just a smokescreen for dumbs during the general.

are you only a hack on Mondays, or are you like this everyday?

1)   The GOP has no problem with conservatives from Hollywood (e.g. Clint Eastwood, Ronald Reagan)
2)   The Screen Actors Guild aint exactly the UAW where unions are driving whole American industries out of business…and Reagan switched from Dem to Rep
3)   CA wasn’t Commiefornia back in Reagan’s day
4)   The abortion law he signed, prior to “well being of the mother” being re-interpreted by the courts, is completely compatible with what is now the life of the mother.
5)   A mix of raising taxes and budget cuts are more than acceptable provided the cuts are real


Now, if you want to talk about something that would bother the GOP base, it’s Nancy’s Ouija board…but we didn’t know about her dabbling in the occult prior to him being elected.

[memphis]

First off, just the word "Hollywood" makes conservatives nauseated. It's a buzzword that can mean anything to everybody, and means everything that's wrong with the world to the GOP. Eastwood is a libertarian who has expressed support for abortion rights and gay rights, hardly somebody the GOP would want as their nominee.
In any case, the Screen Actor's Guild is associated with the Associated Actors and Artistes of America, which is, in turn, associated with the AFL-CIO. Again, not a good association for a GOP primary.
California was different back then, but he was governor back when all the hippies were having their go in the late '60s. And even though Reagan came out forcefully against them, think Newtie wouldn't stab Reagan in the back over it? The GOP base would be frothing at the mouth saying he should have nipped all that in the bud, before it became a problem all over America.
It matters very little to GOP primary voters what the abortion law Reagan signed was. He expanded abortion rights, albeit somewhat narrowly, and then proclaimed that he had made an error because he didn't understand the implications of what he was signing. I think that would make for a nice attack ad during the primary, don't you?
And most importantly. GOP voters will not accept a governor with a record of increasing taxes. And that's gospel. Because, at the end of the day, the mantle of lower taxes is the only thing that matters to Republicans. They don't care if the government is flush or broke. Lower Taxes! If we're at war or peace. Lower Taxes! If we have to slash benefits that Republican voters depend on like Social Security, Medicare, even if people have to die and the taxes in question are only for the richest of the rich, Lower Taxes! wins everytime. Because that's all the GOP stands for anymore, and they would not stand for Reagan's record as governor of California. The GOP is crucifying America on a cross of Lower Taxes! and they are laughing all the way to the bank.

[Fuzzybigfoot]

and was willing to use military intervention to interfere in governments he thought were unfriendly to American interests

So current day Republicans are anti-war now?  lol

[angus]

I would say yes. The man so many Conservatives love to idolize was pro-Abortion and pro-gay rights as California's governor, in favor of amnesty for illegal immigrants, in favor of raising taxes when necessary for revenue increases, and was willing to use military intervention to interfere in governments he thought were unfriendly to American interests (Grenada, Lebanon, Nicaragua, El Salvador, etc.).


Would he be accused of being a RINO and flip-flopper by the base?

He'd probably get called something.  Not sure I agree with you, though.  The fact that he was an interventionist doesn't distinguish him from Bush43, or from McCain.  And those were the last two nominated Republicans, so you can't base a case against Reagan on that point.

And I don't really think anyone goes around calling him pro-abortion or pro-gay rights unless they're trying to make specifically this point.  What is true is that he had some fairly deliberated position on social issues and spent some time coming to those positions.  This is not fundamentally different than Bush41, who was at first pro-choice, and Bush43, who was initially much more friendly to gay rights than he was to become during the four years of his first admistration.  (In the latter's case, it has been thoroughly documented that he was much, much less hostile toward gay rights in private than in public.)

On the issues of taxes and immigration, I might tend more to agree with you, although it is not clear that Ronald Reagan, ceteris paribus, would stake out those positions in today's political climate anyway, so it is probably an obsolete point.

[Vosem]

Yes, albeit not for the reasons you detail.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

look you inbreds, the GOP primary base was just as (if not more so) pro-life and (much more) anti-homosexual in 1980 than in 2012.

And the Hollywood of 1980 didn't have near the stigma of that the Hollywood of 2012 does.

---

To say the GOP primary electorate was less-socially conservative in 1980 than 2012 would be an attempt to rewrite history in order to cover up the fact that it is the Dem party that has moved on those social issues, NOT the GOP!

If EITHER Carter or Reagan had come out as pro-abortion and pro-homosexual, NEITHER would have won their party's nomination.  So stop trying to stroke me.

[California8429]

Yes, but every candidate already is so it's not really surprising.

[Politico]

Let's face it: If Mitt Romney "flip-flopped" on abortion/gay rights, Ronald Reagan was the John Kerry of "flip-flopping" on abortion/gay rights, especially when you consider the 1990s (beginning of Romney's political career) compared to the 1960s/1970s (beginning of Reagan's ascendancy in politics). In 1976, Reagan agreed to put a liberal on the bottom of his proposed ticket (I forget his name, but it was a Senator from Pennsylvania). That is what did him in that year. No way Romney would do something like that.

Romney is to the right of Reagan in every way. That's the funniest part about "conservatives" who are now embracing a religious/marital flip-flopper like Gingrich instead of the one guy who can beat Obama next year...

[Ebowed]

To say the GOP primary electorate was less-socially conservative in 1980 than 2012 would be an attempt to rewrite history in order to cover up the fact that it is the Dem party that has moved on those social issues, NOT the GOP!

McGovern, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis opposed capital punishment, later Democratic nominees did not.

You are correct on gay rights but access to abortion is more restricted today than it was in 1980.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I would say yes. The man so many Conservatives love to idolize was pro-Abortion and pro-gay rights as California's governor, in favor of amnesty for illegal immigrants, in favor of raising taxes when necessary for revenue increases, and was willing to use military intervention to interfere in governments he thought were unfriendly to American interests (Grenada, Lebanon, Nicaragua, El Salvador, etc.).


Would he be accused of being a RINO and flip-flopper by the base?

He'd probably get called something.  Not sure I agree with you, though.  The fact that he was an interventionist doesn't distinguish him from Bush43, or from McCain.  And those were the last two nominated Republicans, so you can't base a case against Reagan on that point.

And I don't really think anyone goes around calling him pro-abortion or pro-gay rights unless they're trying to make specifically this point.  What is true is that he had some fairly deliberated position on social issues and spent some time coming to those positions.  This is not fundamentally different than Bush41, who was at first pro-choice, and Bush43, who was initially much more friendly to gay rights than he was to become during the four years of his first admistration.  (In the latter's case, it has been thoroughly documented that he was much, much less hostile toward gay rights in private than in public.)

On Bush41, I never got the vibe he actually changed. Rather, he was pro-choice but was willing to put his political career ahead of his concerns over the debate of the actual issue, and thus he became Vice-President. I'm willing to bet it was never a big issue for him and if need be, as in real life, he was willing to campaign as an all-out social conservative. After all, that's what the "Reagan Republicans" wanted.

As for the accusations that Reagan in today's GOP would be shunned for being from California? Seriously? You're not understanding specifically why hollywood is hated by Conservatives, because of the actors in it! If Reagan were to, say, not hold the political positions of the majority of actors, don't you think he'd be much better received? Look how Conservative movie stars are treated by Conservatives! They're viewed a Hell of a lot more different than the vast majority of movie stars!

Reagan today would probably be more qualified than a number of people in the field. By 1980 he had eight years of governing experience (beating out Bachmann, Cain, Romney, and to a different extent Gingrich and Paul). In terms of governing experience (not legislative), I'd say his biggest competitors in that area are Perry who after thirty minutes can't for a complete sentence and Huntsman who is not liked by the base. I think some sort of Reagan clone could do very well in the primaries, though he'd definitely have his share of things to be uncovered from his eight years as Governor that would warrant explanations.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

McGovern, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis opposed capital punishment, later Democratic nominees did not.

 

that's because we jmfcsts knocked their dicks in the dirt

---

You are correct on gay rights but access to abortion is more restricted today than it was in 1980.

what about in 1972?

[memphis]

McGovern, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis opposed capital punishment, later Democratic nominees did not.

 

that's because we jmfcsts knocked their dicks in the dirt

Yes, I'm sure that you are a swing voter responsible for epic Dem losses.



Also, have fun with Obama trouncing your conservative burebred in a 30+ state bloodbath. There's a reason the Dems are already playing ads against Romney. It's not to fight him in the general.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Well, no. Ray Gun was hardly an intellectual or a believer in much other than a very conservative strand of American Nationalism (which included a worship of the 'free market'). So if he were running for President today, he'd adopt appropriate positions while retaining the one thing that made/makes him popular.

[Iosif]

The cult of Ronald Reagan. Nothing more disturbing in modern Western politics.