Santorum: Reagan Would Be "Appalled" By To-Day's GOP

[H. Ross Peron]

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/06/20/3451358/rick-santorum-explains-why-ronald-reagan-would-be-appalled-by-todays-gop/

Its interesting to see Santorum move increasingly towards right-wing populism as a political stance. Certainly it is rather refreshing to see, although I suspect Santorum will be marginalized like Pat Buchanan for deviance from neoliberal orthodoxy.

[GaussLaw]

I cannot believe I am saying this, but based on that article, it looks like I am closer to Santorum ideologically than any other GOP candidate.

[IceSpear]

I wonder if his new stance can mend his relations with the blah community.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

>implying that reagan had real political beliefs

[Rockefeller GOP]

Ugh, just be an independent, or better yet an old school Democrat.  I've never liked Santorum.

[7,052,770]

He's right. The guy who legalized abortion in California and prevented gay discrimination of teachers in the 1970s would probably be really uncomfortable and weirded out how the modern GOP has been hijacked by sickos like Santorum who froth over those two issues alone.

[bedstuy]

Isn't everyone appalled by today's GOP?

[NHLiberal]

He's right. The guy who legalized abortion in California and prevented gay discrimination of teachers in the 1970s would probably be really uncomfortable and weirded out how the modern GOP has been hijacked by sickos like Santorum who froth over those two issues alone.

I see what you did there

[Meursault]

Reagan was much closer to amoral free-marketeerism than to Santorumesque populism.

[Maxwell]

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/06/20/3451358/rick-santorum-explains-why-ronald-reagan-would-be-appalled-by-todays-gop/

Its interesting to see Santorum move increasingly towards right-wing populism as a political stance. Certainly it is rather refreshing to see, although I suspect Santorum will be marginalized like Pat Buchanan for deviance from neoliberal orthodoxy.

that was always his schtick.

[Indy Texas]

Do you think some of this may be Santorum getting older and acquiring some of the circumspection that often comes with age?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Or, I guess the Overton Window keeps on moving and Santorum is now a member of the liberal wing of the Republican Party.

[Meursault]

This is why we need an overtly fascist Party in America that (A) isn't National Socialist and (B) isn't third positionist, but is instead a good old-fashioned non-racialist Mussolinian and syndicalist outfit.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Do you think some of this may be Santorum getting older and acquiring some of the circumspection that often comes with age?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Or, I guess the Overton Window keeps on moving and Santorum is now a member of the liberal wing of the Republican Party.

He's not in the liberal wing until he stops hating on gays so hard.

[TJ in Oregon]

Didn't he just campaign for Chris McDaniel about a month ago? What gives?

[Non Swing Voter]

How is he still at all relevant.  He doesn't even have a crappy talk show like Huckabee... or does he?

[Fuzzy Bear]

How appalled Reagan would be with today’s GOP is open to speculation.  I certainly think that Reagan would view the GOP as having gone overboard on doctrinaire conservatism to the point where the GOP was in danger of becoming a fringe party.  I certainly think that Reagan would be appalled with big money financing GOP conservative primary challengers to incumbent Republicans who were, indeed, conservatives, but not of the totally unyielding variety.  (Reagan would probably be scratching his head as to how Bob Bennett of Utah could be considered insufficiently conservative.)  

Reagan was an inclusive Republican who understood that the GOP’s Presidential landslides came from the belief (backed up by a degree of action) that the GOP sought to be the party of the American Middle Class.  There was no war on Public Employee Unions during Reagan’s years, other than PATCO (whose air traffic controllers waged an ill-fated and illegal strike that got them all canned).  There was no war on Public Education, but there WAS discussion in conservative circles as to how to improve public education through conservative means.  There was a pro-business tilt toward government, but there was not a full-scale movement to privatize the institutions of government that provided stability to a middle class society (education, corrections, social services, transportation) so that entrepreneurs could make a profit on these things at the expense of the quality of needed services to the Middle Class.  Ronald Reagan understood that government involvement was necessary for a nation to maintain a middle class society in terms of education, public safety, and transportation.  

The GOP is suffering today at the Presidential level not because of Reaganism, but because of Bushism.  It’s Bushism that launched the wars and formulated the NAFTA/CAFTA/GATT free trade policies that trashed American manufacturing.  It’s Bushism that sanctioned the war on the public sector for the economic gain of a few entrepreneurs and an attempt to promise folks that they, too, could get their kids into a religious school with a voucher (at the expense of a government commitment to public education).  It’s Bushism that has shrunk the middle class and made entry into the middle class a harder trick to pull off.

It’s not that I disagree with Rick Santorum on what he said here.  It’s that I don’t trust him to carry out what he proposes if elected President.  Is he picking up a new line now that Foster Friess isn’t writng checks for him anymore?  Maybe not, but for me to even entertain supporting Santorum, I’d have to be a bit more convinced that he’s serious about what he’s now claiming he believes.

[H. Ross Peron]

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/06/20/3451358/rick-santorum-explains-why-ronald-reagan-would-be-appalled-by-todays-gop/

Its interesting to see Santorum move increasingly towards right-wing populism as a political stance. Certainly it is rather refreshing to see, although I suspect Santorum will be marginalized like Pat Buchanan for deviance from neoliberal orthodoxy.

that was always his schtick.

His economic platform in 2012 was pretty much standard GOP at least on taxation.

[CountryClassSF]

Voted for him in 2012 (Even after he dropped out), and I will happily do it again. He's my guy!

[Rockefeller GOP]

Voted for him in 2012 (Even after he dropped out), and I will happily do it again. He's my guy!

Ew, why?  The anti-gay fiscal liberal has no place in this party.

[5280]

Nobody cares what he has to say.

[Maxwell]

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/06/20/3451358/rick-santorum-explains-why-ronald-reagan-would-be-appalled-by-todays-gop/

Its interesting to see Santorum move increasingly towards right-wing populism as a political stance. Certainly it is rather refreshing to see, although I suspect Santorum will be marginalized like Pat Buchanan for deviance from neoliberal orthodoxy.

that was always his schtick.

His economic platform in 2012 was pretty much standard GOP at least on taxation.

His Senate career was "oh I'm for the working class" and he certainly did that kind of pretending on the campaign trail, even though his actual proposals on a lot of issues don't actually show that.

[CountryClassSF]

Voted for him in 2012 (Even after he dropped out), and I will happily do it again. He's my guy!

Ew, why?  The anti-gay fiscal liberal has no place in this party.

No place in our "big tent"?

He's hardly a fiscal liberal.. He opposed TARP and actually became more conservative after leaving office.

Supporting trad'l marriage does not make someone anti gay

[The Dowager Mod]

Ricky's right but for the wrong reasons.

[King]

Calvin Coolidge wouldn't even support today's conservatives. He was against free trade and believed the rich should bear all of the tax burden.

And we all know Barry Goldwater hated the GOP by the time he was put in the grave, much less what he'd think now.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

The difference between 1980s and 2010s Republicans is a difference of style, not actual positions.