Ronald Reagan: Class Warrior

[JPhillips]

This is a great piece of history. Imagine him trying to win a Republican primary toaday with this running 24/7 on tv and talk radio.

[Warhammer]

I see someone doesn't know their history. Reagan was a pretty staunch democrat until he realized what worked and what didn't. He was pretty open about his past.

[JPhillips]

Of course I know he was a Democrat. I just found this audio very interesting as a piece of history. I also think he would be butchered by this sort of thing if he were running today. I find it fascinating how the mythological Reagan has come to replace the real Reagan.

[Warhammer]

I'm not so sure. If someone is up front and admits that he what he said in the past was wrong, we're generally understanding of that. Just like in the case of Obama with the Wright stuff, if he came out and admitted it was wrong, etc., etc. It would have gone away. It is only when you do something and do not come clean or try to hide things that we generally do not forgive.

[JPhillips]

Like the beating Romney took over abortion? We're in an age where past positions are blanketed across the media to the point where you can't escape them. Just as a counter factual I think it's interesting to comapre the real Reagan to the myth of Reagan and think about how the process of picking a President has changed. It's not an attack on Reagan.

[Subby]

No way Reagan survives that today. Not with how media has changed in the last 10 years. The dems would be running that 24-7.

[Warhammer]

I think the difference between Romney and Reagan are merely a matter of time. Reagan first became a national figure in what, 64? This was from 48? That's 16 years. That is a reasonable time frame, Romney is what 4 years removed from being the governor of MA? If he keeps running on the same platform 4 years from now, he'll be fine.

[JPhillips]

A lot of the clips run against Romney were from the 1994 Senate race.

[Cringer]

I say Ulysses Grant would have a harder time then Reagan. I mean he married a slave owners daughter, running against Obama that would not play out well. Plus there is the whole S. thing.

[SteveMax58]

I dont think this causes Reagan any issues if he were running today.

Unlike Romney, Reagan had a personality that could dismiss things like this, with no further repercussion. He'd probably say something to the effect of "being young and experimenting with drugs(as a joke)"...or "this is why they say you are a democrat at 20 because you have heart, and republican at 40(or 50 is it?) because you have a brain."

There is also the relationship of the media themselves, with a candidate, whereby they tend to run these types of stories more or less depending on whether they feel like a candidate is giving them(or treating them) with what they want. This is also where Reagan can do more to help himself than somebody like Romney.

IDK...in this day and age...almost every candidate that has actually been around longer than a day has something like this that can be pointed to. Guys like Reagan, Bill Clinton(in his prime), & even to a lesser extent, GWB, are just better at getting the media to not care quite as much. At least before they get into office that is.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Cringer

I say Ulysses Grant would have a harder time then Reagan. I mean he married a slave owners daughter, running against Obama that would not play out well. Plus there is the whole S. thing.

Plus he's dead. That's tough to overcome, even in the internet age.

[Cringer]

Reagan is dead as well, maybe they can be on the same ticket?

[JPhillips]

For me the issue is political coverage and what gets the media into high gear. It's hard to evaluate positions without charges of bias, so news outlets simply focus on hypocrisy and flip-flops. Look at Tim Russert, he's made a career out of "tough" questioning that often boils down to, "You said that, but now you say this."

In the end it's not really that important. I just found the clip to be a fascinating piece of history. Even at that age you can hear the politician in him.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Cringer

I say Ulysses Grant would have a harder time then Reagan. I mean he married a slave owners daughter, running against Obama that would not play out well. Plus there is the whole S. thing.

and the Cold Harbor thing too.

[CamEdwards]

I wonder if it's easier to accept a change of party than a change of a particular position. I'm not saying that's the most logical thing, but it seems we buy into people leaving one party for another more than we buy into people changing their views on any given particular issue.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

I wonder if it's easier to accept a change of party than a change of a particular position. I'm not saying that's the most logical thing, but it seems we buy into people leaving one party for another more than we buy into people changing their views on any given particular issue.

I suspect this may be highly dependant on the individual, but it may be more acceptable when we see those candidates as "Democrats in Republican clothing" or "Republicans in Democrat clothing".

Like Zell Miller, for instance, might not have been a big shock to change parties. Very similarly, we might expect Joe Lieberman someday to do the same. It just seems that some people eventually realize they just dont belong to the party they originally thought themselves to be more aligned with. And I think we forgive that more easily when their voting record matches this.

[Wolfpack]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

and the Cold Harbor thing too.

Pfft. Cold Harbor was overrated as an event. He could have survived it even now.

[SFL Cat]

I'd vote for Reagan with Alzhiemers before I'd vote for McCain, Obama or Clinton.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Wolfpack

Pfft. Cold Harbor was overrated as an event. He could have survived it even now.

I don't know, not with today's vulture press. Heck, it was bad, real bad, back then, esp. giving him the Butcher label. Today? He would be on the cover of Parade magazine as the worst dictator/madman of all time.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Plus he's dead. That's tough to overcome, even in the internet age.

And if he were alive, he'd be trying to escape from Grant's tomb?

SI

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Plus he's dead. That's tough to overcome, even in the internet age.

Tell that to John Ashcroft.

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

I wonder if it's easier to accept a change of party than a change of a particular position. I'm not saying that's the most logical thing, but it seems we buy into people leaving one party for another more than we buy into people changing their views on any given particular issue.

I think it's more black-and-white when someone switches parties, and, let's face it, this country's population likes things simple. Someone staying in their party, but changing their position on something is more nuanced. America doesn't do nuance.