Associated Press
The Reagans and the Romneys in 1967.
President Obama covered quite a bit of ground in his speech at the Associated Press luncheon the other day, but one of his arguments stirred some interesting discussion: "Ronald Reagan ... could not get through a Republican primary today."
The president's likely GOP rival made the opposite case yesterday.
Mitt Romney is disputing President Obama's assertion that Ronald Reagan couldn't win a primary in today's Republican Party, adding that he could do it in part by going after Obama economic policies.
"I actually think Ronald Reagan would win handily in a primary and frankly in all the primaries," Romney told a group of newspaper editors [Wednesday].
It hasn't generated a lot of attention, but Obama's not the only one arguing that contemporary Republicans would reject the man the RNC labeled "Ronaldus Magnus." About a year ago, a House Republican went so far as to dismiss Reagan as a "moderate, former liberal" who "would never be elected today." Mike Huckabee said around the same time, "Ronald Reagan would have a very difficult, if not impossible, time being nominated in this atmosphere of the Republican Party." Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) had a nearly identical take in 2010, arguing Reagan "would have a hard time getting elected as a Republican today."
So, who's right? Romney or Obama, Huckabee, and Graham? It's obviously speculative, but I don't think this is a close call.
Reagan raised the debt ceiling 18 times, and he supported the precursor to the Buffett Rule. In his first term, Reagan raised taxes when unemployment was nearing 11% -- imagine trying this today -- and proceeded to raise taxes seven out of the eight years he was in office. It's a fact the right finds terribly inconvenient, but "no peacetime president has raised taxes so much on so many people" as Reagan.
Reagan gave amnesty to undocumented immigrants, expanded the size of the federal government, tripled the deficit and added trillions to the debt, bailed out domestic industries, and called for a world without nuclear weapons. Reagan also met with our most hated enemy without preconditions, criticized Israel, and illegally funneled arms to Iran.
And then there's his gubernatorial record.
In California, Reagan increased spending, raised taxes, helped create the nation's first state-based emissions standards, signed an abortion-rights bill, and expanded the nation's largest state-based Medicaid program (socialized medicine).
Reagan "could not get through a Republican primary today"? Reagan could not get through a Republican primary without being laughed off the stage today.
Why does this matter? For one thing, it's at least interesting to appreciate the fact that Republicans have a religious-like reverence for Reagan, they have no use for his approach to governance.
For another, it should tell the American mainstream something important when the GOP moves so far to the ideological extreme that it's no longer the Party of Reagan.
Leave a Comment:
The Republicans are following the moral of the great James Stewart / John Wayne movie The Man who Shot Liberty Valence: "When the legend becomes the fact go with the legend"
Problem for them is there were more witnesses to what occurred in the street outside the saloon than Stewart, Wayne, Lee Marvin and Woody Strode.
One of my favorite movie quotes!
Jesus could not win a GOP primary, much too liberal.
I love telling conservatives that Jesus was a liberal. It really pisses them off, like I just insulted Jesus. They worship the Bizarro-World Jesus not the real Jesus.
Funny, the only thing that is the same about the GOP of Reagan and the GOP of Boehner is that I still wouldn't vote for any of them.
I have tried several times to make these points about Reagan to my conservative, Reagan worshiping friends, and their eyes just glaze over and they disengage. It's almost impossible for them to accept what he really was.
As with ALL things, the Republicans are trying to rewrite history. They think if they say it enought, throw money at it and completely LIE about it, it will be so.
Funny...the same statement can be said about you tree huggers as well.
My father has been a Republican all of his life, but has become what I lovingly refer to as a "closet" Republican. He says he's an Independent now, but still watches only Fox News and gets frustrated when we discuss politics as the accusations he levels on the President (that he's seen on said station) I usually can gently counter with fact. He then goes on a usual rant about how they "all" are just horrible lol. I've often said myself that 50 years ago I probably would have been a Republican. The once family values, working guy, less government party has gone off the rails. Even Republicans on the hill recognize the shift, and it's not a sudden recent one either. It's been a progressive march to the extreme right. Several of my once Republican friends now sit soundly in the Independent camp.
And re: the Walker recall? Oy. I spend a good deal of time playing with the debaters over on PolicyMic and the Republicans there seem to have all the attention span of goldfish. They're blathering about how all the recall election effort is a waste of taxpayer money and seem to have no recollection of the hordes of protesters camping out in subfreezing weather in Madison 13 months ago!
My father has always been a Republican. The funny thing is, I never even knew it until 2008. By then he was 72. So when I engaged him in a discussion of why, he wouldn't talk about it. He said "you're too smart to argue with." I took it as affirmation that my choice to be a Democrat is the right one.
It's more and more obvious lately that the "Independent camp" label you speak of has become little more than a pseudonym for "Closet Republican". No offense to you personally, but many trolls who come here to spread their hate these days are quite proud of, and never miss an opportunity to mention, the fact that they're "Independent". I was also an independent my entire life, but switched solidly to Democrat in 2008 to show my absolute support for then candidate Barack Obama. It seemed like the right time to do it and, in retrospect, it was a wise decision if I do say so myself.
Keepintime- No offense taken at all. I, myself, have moved from Independent to Democrat over the past decade, the Bush administration helped a lot with that decision and in the current climate I am utterly liberal. I think if the GOP were to revamp and return to reason instead of extremism. ALL of my now Independent friends would return to them with glee.
Reagan was an avuncular dunce who learned early on in broadcasting and Hollywood to remember his lines and hit his marks.
"Reality" is created in the editing room, and that is why we believe the fiction of movies.
Republicans have a religious-like reverence for Reagan, they have no use for his approach to governance.
It's much like their adoration of Jesus -- they act like they're His most loyal followers, but ignore virtually everything He ever said or did.
The Beatitudes? Condemnations of the wealthy? Attacks on the money changers? None of that ever happened in the Republican Bible.
It is interesting to take a look back at the Presidencies since the Kennedy era and see how the various gentlemen that inhabited the White House handled their fiscal responsibilities when it came to the national debt. As shown in this article, the President that is responsible for accruing the largest cumulative annual percent growth in the debt may surprise you:
http://viableopposition.blogspot.com/2011/08/americas-presidents-who-was-biggest.html
Perhaps supply side economics was not the success that the Reagan Administration claimed.
No surprise here. I've been screaming this for decades. Same result if you calculate deficit as percentage of GDP.
Hate to say it, but Reagan would have a hard time getting through Democratic primaries today. He was too far to the left on too many issues.
I guess facts are no longer important. The new GOP get to make up their own facts. The Republican base doesn't seem to mind. As long as they all have the same goal, they are obviously allowed to lie, this is the New Gentlemans agreement between the GOP. Narrative: Listen up everybody we've got to do some dirty underhanded things in order to get President Obama out of office. Yes, we will need to lie we will need to ignore facts we will need to create fear and anger You can be as deceiving as you want to be as long as we get rid of President Obama. God will forgive us. He's a Muslim for Pete's Sake. So whatever you have to do, do it! What else will they allow themselves to do for personal gain?
Hate to say it, but Reagan would have a hard time winning the Democratic nod nowadays. He was too far to the left on too many issues.
You're right. He was the former president of the SAG. The Democrats tend to keep their union brethren at arm's length.
That Reagan was president of SAG proves nothing, other than you people who think it's important have no knowledge of Hollywood and particularly of Hollywood history and can be considered illiterate morons. Ronald Reagan was one of the biggest supporters of the Black List, and used his power in SAG to go after lefty actors and see their careers destroyed. In fact, he was elected president of SAG because he supported the black list - by the Republicans in SAG! While he was president of SAG, he worked closely with the powers-that-be in the studios and did nothing to challenge their power or decisions, no matter how destructive they were to the careers of actors. He was a "union lap dog of management," if you've ever heard the term before. He sold out 80% of the actors in his union when he accepted the plan put forward by the studios to pay residuals, which effectively killed any residuals for movies being shown in TV at the time (a major major source of revenue for the studios as they ransacked their libraries, with every penny paid by the networks pure profit for them).
When his own career died, he became a spokesman for General Electric, and then decided to officially adopt their policies by becoming a "Goldwater Republican." So much for Reagan the "principled moderate."
And anyone involved in protesting the war back then well remembers him siccing the California Highway Patrol on us and telling people on camera that we deserved to be shot.
Calling Ronald Reagan a "lefty" or a "moderate" on anything only proves the political illiteracy and lack of historical awareness of the idiot saying such things.
He was SAG President because Lew Wasserman of Universal wanted him there. His major achievement was selling out his fellow actors/union members for royalties payments for any movie made before 1960.
Reagan and Bush on illegal immigration.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ixi9_cciy8w&feature=player_embedded
To the IT folks at The Maddow Blog:
This RSS feed is not working: http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_feeds/rss2/author
Sure hope you get it fixed.
GOP "Rope-A-Dope"?
After watching this segment on how the GOP is now to the Right of Reagan and Obama is closer to where Reagan was 30 years ago, I couldn't help but feeling like we're the victim of a clever game of "Rope-A-Dope" (ala: Ali).
By dragging the GOP further and further to the Right, they have cleverly shifted the "center" to where Reagan was 30 years ago. And in 30 years, the "center" could be where the GOP is today.
Because sadly, Democrats don't do the same thing on the Left. Newly elected Democrats aren't MORE Liberal than their predecessors because they would be pilloried by The Press. Yet, we're slowly but surely moving to the Right where now, even President Bush is "accused" of "not being a TRUE Conservative" just three short years ago.
Time to stand our ground. No other Democratic president in the last 50 years is more suited to realign the Center in his second term.
I keep hearing this, but honestly I think Reagan was so good at charm he would win the nomination. After all, they are nominating Romney this year.
(addendum to Reagan legacy: Was the president of one of the largest most powerful labor unions in the country: The Screen Actors Guild.)
See my comment above. He sold out his fellow union members.
The GOP should rename themselves to RINO - for they are as far from the "values, limited government, and equality" that they espouse. These people have watched far too many wild west movies, and have begun to think that America is still a "vast, wide empty expanse to be civilized" hence the cry for their "guns and liberty". I think it's mass hysteria - too much FAUX television, period! They are as extreme in their views as the Nazi's, and their attempts at obfuscating and distorting the truth along with their unwillingness to engage in serious, thoughtful analysis and debate about the real issues confronting this nation and it's people via the policies being enacted all lead a thinking rational person to think that they should all be committed - lest they continue to inflict further harm on US all.
As someone who worked in California politics when Reagan was governor, who thought him an "amiable dunce" after once meeting the man (I still do), I have to say that today's Republican party makes me not only think of the days of Reagan as some golden age, but even the days of Nixon (when I was on his enemies list and one of those subject to the COINTELPRO operation, not to mention his assault on the constitution at Watergate, etc.). Back then, Republicans and Democrats lived in the same reality-based universe with each other. We laughed together at the "holy rollers" and made jokes about southern accents ("could y'all speak a little English down there?"). But more importantly, we considered the same facts to be actual facts, and based things we did on mutual appreciation of those facts. You could sit down over drinks at night with your opposite number in the legislative aides, and come up with a plan you could both live with, and both write it down on cocktail napkins and take them to our respective bosses in the morning, secure in the knowledge they would accept the ideas, and would act on them. And nobody made deals they later welshed on, at least they didn't do so and expect to remain able to work in government. Back then, the people who constitute today's Republican Party were considered a bad joke by the Republicans!
In those days, the religious right was considered quaint and kooky, but in an entirely harmless way. Now, with the Tea Party -- a rebranded Christian right -- they control Republican actions, stop any legislation to move the country forward and are on the verge, with the Supreme Court in the driver's seat, of taking the country back to The Gilded Age.
And still the country hasn't woken up. The media has proven itself incompetent and ignorant, and the citizens seem to have no sense of what is at stake. It's going to take a disaster and then people are going to say why didn't anybody tell us.
Say goodbye to the country you grew up in. Spinelessness and cowardice on the part of liberals/progressives, irresponsible and ignorant media, and irresponsible citizenship amongst the general public will allow the vicious right to win their goal of a banana republic.
TCinLA,
I SO envy you! You were actually ON Nixon's enemies list? Wow, what an accomplishment. Congratulations.
I was an Ohio teenager so didn't have the chance to be listed.
Brilliant! all the more reason why Romney will be trounced in November. He doesn't understand what he's talking about.
Great post but you forgot one important piece. If you really want to see the teabagger heads explode, point them to Reagan's 1991 nytimes op-ed on how he supports the Brady bill:
http://www.nytimes.com/1991/03/29/opinion/why-i-m-for-the-brady-bill.html
I need to come here more. It's not a troll friendly environment. Excellent article, of course.
The Republican party has changed since Reagan was president. In the 60's, William F. Buckley chased out the radicals and provided the party a philosophy. But that party is long gone. The Republicans have no philosophy other than to make their benefactors and themselves rich. The Tea Party has been exposed as a sham when it comes to economic philosophy and social issues; they are just a tool of the interest groups who are trying to take total control of the party. Republican moderates, the few that are left, are gone and most operate on the state level rather than the national politics. Only major election losses created by the radicals will change the party's trajectory. Unfortunately that will not happen with Mitt Romney who will get blamed for election losses because he is too moderate. The radicals will double down after the Republicans lose these elections and 2016 will see the party moved even further to the right.
I watched the rapid deification of Reagan in the late 90s/early 00s with bemusement and I'm still confused as to why exactly it happened. I wasn't as liberal back then and even so I can remember saying, "But Reagan wasn't all that great!" Didn't matter. When posters of Saint Ronnie started showing up on dorm walls next to band posters and pinups, I went "Ooooooo-kay" and accelerated my up-till-then slow pace of backing away from all things Republican. Screw creationism and "Saddam had WMDs!"--you want to see a real example of historical revisionism, propaganda, and modern mythmaking, look no further than Reagan's recasting as a god.
Republicans are trying to bury FDR as the greatest president of the 20th century. It won't work because Reagan did nothing outstanding, nor did he preside over a difficult time in the country on par with Roosevelt who had to deal with the economy and the impending war. Nor did Reagan bring down the Iron Curtain; he was merely the last president in a long line going back to John Foster Dulles policy of containment after WWII. Reagan's legacy is devoid of any major accomplishment other than the catalyst for a Republican resurgence in politics after the Nixon debacle. In fact, there is the Iran Contragate scandal, the Iranian hostages scandal and that fact that Reagan greatly expanded government spending. Reagan's deification is merely a wishful thought on the part of Republicans to erase FDR.
Yes, but they still remember fondly how he busted the ATC union, gutted the Justice Dept. anti-trust division, and appointed Scalia, Rehnquist, and Kennedy to the Court.