Kasich Super-PAC: Reagan to Trump

[Kingpoleon]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/pro-kasich-super-pac-contrasts-donald-trump-to-ronald-reagan/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[RI]

Republicans don't really care about what Reagan actually said or did, only what their romanticized version of him represents.

[Red Willow]

Reagan supported mass immigration
Reagan appointed a pro abortion judge
Reagan supported neo-con interventionist policies

Reagan's got nothing on Trump

[RI]

Reagan appointed a pro abortion judge

Hell, Reagan literally legalized abortion as governor.

[Broken System]

That's how Trump will get in headlines next week! He will call Reagan an idiot and say that he actually wasn't a good president.

[Likely Voter]

Four years after Reagan gave that RNC speech the GOP used Willy Horton the help elect Reagan's VP, four years later Pat Buchannan gave his 'culture wars' speech at the RNC and four years later he ran his racist dog-whistle campaign again and won NH, four years after that Bush Sr's son used racist robo calls to stop McCain's momentum to win the GOP nomination. And then things got really fun when the GOP ran against an actual black person.

Let's face it, the racist element has been a part of the party since the Southern Strategy so Kasich shouldn't act so suprised.  The only difference is that Trump isn't doing it in a subtle or behind the scenes way like a good GOP candidate should.

[temmie b. <3]

That's how Trump will get in headlines next week! He will call Reagan an idiot and say that he actually wasn't a good president.

That won't happen. Candidates can say almost anything in the GOP now, but insulting Jesus or Reagan won't end well for any candidate.

[RINO Tom]

Freedom ad, haters be damned.  If modern "conservatives" are going to be so batsh^t crazy that they make RONALD REAGAN look like some kind of moderate, then they need to be called out for it at the very least.

[RINO Tom]

That's how Trump will get in headlines next week! He will call Reagan an idiot and say that he actually wasn't a good president.

That won't happen. Candidates can say almost anything in the GOP now, but insulting Jesus or Reagan won't end well for any candidate.

If anyone would do it, though, it'd be Trump.

[Sir Mohamed]

Republicans don't really care about what Reagan actually said or did, only what their romanticized version of him represents.

Right. Reagan spoke out for an assault-weapons-ban and background checks.

[Rockefeller GOP]

Freedom ad!  Is Reagan entering the second to last stage of liberal revisionism of history??   The process is certainly being helped out by the crazies in our party.  Lincoln has gone all the way through it, Eisenhower is about 3/4 of the way through and I guess Reagan has started it.  It usually goes like this:

Phase 1: Hated by Democrats of his time for just about everything
Phase 2: Still not liked by Democrats but WAY better than modern "crazy Republicans"
Phase 3: One of the better Republicans, might even be a Democrat today
Phase 4: He was a liberal for his time, he'd definitely be a Democrat today

Now while these revisionisms are stupid, they are given fuel by the moronic base of the GOP.  Someone in the early 2000s would have laughed at the idea of Reagan ever not being a Republican (in the future, obviously), just as people in the 1970s would have laughed at Eisenhower ever becoming a Democrat and people in the early 1900s would have laughed at Lincoln ever becoming one, even though the left-right dynamic of the two parties was pretty clearly in play during those decades.  As enough time goes by, the GOP moves right and people forget what those Presidents were actually like and use talking points or single things that they did to prove their point.

They'll be wrong, but mark my words, there will come a time when liberal Democrats will lionize Reagan as someone who'd unquestionably be a Democrat "today."

Anyway, freedom ad.

[Maxwell]

LIBRUL REVISIONIONISM.

Liberals actually look at what Reagan did. Reagan had a lot of rhetoric, but rhetoric doesn't mean a thing compared to what the person actually did. Reagan cut revenues massively, grew government even more, allowed amnesty for illegal immigrants, and negotiated with TERRORISTS. Reagan could probably get elected by talking out of both sides of his mouth like he did before, but he would never win re-election with the kind of record he added up.

But everyone is a moron except for you, right?

[Rockefeller GOP]

LIBRUL REVISIONIONISM.

Liberals actually look at what Reagan did. Reagan had a lot of rhetoric, but rhetoric doesn't mean a thing compared to what the person actually did. Reagan cut revenues massively, grew government even more, allowed amnesty for illegal immigrants, and negotiated with TERRORISTS. Reagan could probably get elected by talking out of both sides of his mouth like he did before, but he would never win re-election with the kind of record he added up.

But everyone is a moron except for you, right?

Yeah, that's exactly what I implied...

[RINO Tom]

LIBRUL REVISIONIONISM.

Liberals actually look at what Reagan did. Reagan had a lot of rhetoric, but rhetoric doesn't mean a thing compared to what the person actually did. Reagan cut revenues massively, grew government even more, allowed amnesty for illegal immigrants, and negotiated with TERRORISTS. Reagan could probably get elected by talking out of both sides of his mouth like he did before, but he would never win re-election with the kind of record he added up.

But everyone is a moron except for you, right?

That's the point, though.  He's saying people use these random actions, when (at least I think) it's more important to look at their motives and the ends they're seeking when determining what party they might be in.  There are pro-choice Republicans, there are pro-amnesty Republicans and name me the last time a Republican didn't grow government.  I believe that the pro-business and pro-"normalcy" temperment (in the spirit of Harding's 1920 campaign) of Lincoln, Eisenhower and Reagan would keep them in the GOP in near every decade, regardless of how ostracized they'd feel.  Throughout history, there are a lot more people who stuck it out with their party than those who switched.  There's more to it than just a list of ideological positions.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Ronald Reagan was a cretin and I'm glad he's dead. I'm not sure why liberals play this game where they compare conservatives of the past to conservatives of the present in order to demonstrate that conservatives of the present are particularly deranged; as an ideology, movement conservatism has always been reactionary to the core and deeply unhinged, whether this is expressed through its jingoism or its "piety" or its racism. It has also succeeded on this basis for decades. The Republican Party of 2015 is the logical culmination of decades of slow rot within the traditional "respectable" pillars of the GOP, which have utterly disappeared as a viable force within the party.

Remember: conservatives in the tumultuous 60s and 70s applauded the national guard for shooting students at Kent State. A father who killed his daughter and her friends received thousands of letters of admiration. These people embody Reagan's popular appeal; he captured the backlash vote. He implemented a number destructive policies as President; from his total lack of response to AIDS to his embrace of dictatorial regimes to his gutting of welfare to his massive wealth re-distribution from the poor to the wealthy.

These people have always been insane but Kasich is clearly a moderate FF because he said something nice about poor people and only wants to destroy some immigrant families. Reagan was too because he said a nice thing about unions once!

[publicunofficial]

Ronald Reagan was a cretin and I'm glad he's dead. I'm not sure why liberals play this game where they compare conservatives of the past to conservatives of the present in order to demonstrate that conservatives of the present are particularly deranged; as an ideology, movement conservatism has always been reactionary to the core and deeply unhinged, whether this is expressed through its jingoism or its "piety" or its racism. It has also succeeded on this basis for decades. The Republican Party of 2015 is the logical culmination of decades of slow rot within the traditional "respectable" pillars of the GOP, which have utterly disappeared as a viable force within the party.

Remember: conservatives in the tumultuous 60s and 70s applauded the national guard for shooting students at Kent State. A father who killed his daughter and her friends received thousands of letters of admiration. These people have always been insane.

Agreed.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Ronald Reagan was a cretin and I'm glad he's dead. I'm not sure why liberals play this game where they compare conservatives of the past to conservatives of the present in order to demonstrate that conservatives of the present are particularly deranged; as an ideology, movement conservatism has always been reactionary to the core and deeply unhinged, whether this is expressed through its jingoism or its "piety" or its racism. It has also succeeded on this basis for decades. The Republican Party of 2015 is the logical culmination of decades of slow rot within the traditional "respectable" pillars of the GOP, which have utterly disappeared as a viable force within the party.

Remember: conservatives in the tumultuous 60s and 70s applauded the national guard for shooting students at Kent State. A father who killed his daughter and her friends received thousands of letters of admiration. These people have always been insane.

Agreed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxHBx6H-xFo

moderate, ff!



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Drug_Abuse_Act_of_1986

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentencing_Reform_Act

This only seems "centrist" and "sensible" for its time because Reagan gave the Democratic Party a hard-spanking on "law and order" issues; there was a time when Democratic candidates were favorable to decriminalizing drugs and upholding the civil rights of the citizenry in its interactions with the police. These were not particularly controversial positions in the 1960s; the "consensus" favored decriminalizing or legalizing marijuana and a criminal justice system that prioritized rehabilitation.

This is my way of saying that the left has been in headlong retreat for decades. When we claim that Reagan was sensible in order to discredit Cruz or Trump, we play into a false conservative narrative about history that's very destructive to our long term efforts. We need to start placing blame where it ought to be placed: at the feet of Ronny Reagan.

[Volrath50]

I'm not sure how running an ad with video of Trump saying something that 2/3 of GOP voters approve of is going to hurt Trump or in some even more bizzare way, help Kasich. The only thing that could possibly come out of this is maybe hurting Reagan's approval rating.