-
Magisterial and Indispensable
June 22, 2011 | 11 comments
-
Lincoln’s Decisive Switch
April 8, 2009 | 23 comments
Buy the Book
Their Finest Hour
Craig Shirley has written the definitive book on Ronald Reagan’s winning campaign of 1980.
Rendezvous with Destiny: Ronald Reagan and the
Campaign That Changed America
By Craig Shirley
(ISI Books, 740 pages, $30)
The landslide outcome of the 1980 presidential election now seems a foregone conclusion. With double-digit inflation and interest rates, high taxes, a loss of international prestige, and the indignity of American hostages in Iran, President Jimmy Carter’s loss to former California governor Ronald Reagan seems inevitable. The electoral blowout of 489-49 and the popular victory by almost 9 million votes seems as unsurprising in retrospect as Franklin Roosevelt’s fourth term. But as Craig Shirley shows in his new book, Rendezvous with Destiny: Ronald Reagan and the Campaign That Changed America, Reagan’s path to the White House — from the Republican primaries to the general election — was anything but a smooth journey, and nearly ended in failure.
In truth, Reagan’s 1980 victory began with his 1976 sliver-thin loss to then president Gerald R. Ford in the Republican primaries. Reagan’s convention speech that year galvanized the Republican Party — and made many wonder if they had chosen the wrong candidate. Reagan spent the four years from 1976 to 1980 speaking and writing about conservative causes and ideals, and campaigning for GOP candidates across the country. He entered the 1980 Republican primary as the clear front-runner, but by no means the only candidate. It became a race not just for the leading of America, but for the soul of the Republican Party. It was a contest between men of vastly different political ideologies: liberal Republicans such as John Anderson, moderate, country club Republicans like George H. W. Bush, and conservatives such as Ronald Reagan.
Who knows or remembers today how perilously close Reagan came to losing the nomination that year? Shirley reveals the Reagan campaign’s strategy and characters in more detail than has ever been accomplished, from the arrogant yet brilliant campaign manager John Sears, to the involvement of Nancy Reagan, to the vagaries of the candidate himself. As Shirley clearly shows, Ronald Reagan was an exceptional visionary, politician, and campaigner, but his great weakness was his penchant for coasting through a campaign if he was not challenged. This, in fact, along with bad advice to avoid campaigning in the all-important Iowa caucuses, led to Reagan’s shocking loss to George H. W. Bush in the Hawkeye State. After this loss, Reagan was “on the brink of political oblivion,” as Shirley states.
From this first loss until his ultimate victory in the primaries, we see Reagan not as a flawless conservative hero, but as the man and the candidate that he honestly was, one with great strengths and also weaknesses. His political acumen, his intelligence and charm, his ability to communicate and connect with voters, all are evident. But while Shirley clearly admires Reagan, the author pulls no punches and makes no excuses for the Gipper’s flaws. He shows time and again how Reagan “coasted” through certain areas and aspects of the campaign; how Reagan made mistakes by skipping debates and made misstatements on the trail; that Reagan at times put too much faith in certain of his advisers, and as a consequence even betrayed the loyalty of other friends and advisers, such as the firing of longtime friend and adviser Michael Deaver. Shirley shows Reagan’s occasional temper, such as when his argument with campaign manager John Sears nearly ended with Reagan punching the obstinate and arrogant man in the face.
The narrative of Rendezvous with Destiny flows smoothly from campaign to campaign, showing the workings and strategies, the successes and failures of all the candidates: Reagan, Bush, Anderson, John Connally, Bob Dole, Howard Baker, and the waffling indecision of former President Ford. There also is equal study given to the Democratic primary race between President Carter and Massachusetts Senator Edward M. Kennedy — a race that showed Carter’s ruthless campaign tactics, and bloodied him up severely for the general election. As the reader is moved through these interweaving stories, the classic events of the campaign are always looming on the horizon, such as the great two-man debate at Nashua High School in New Hampshire where Reagan outflanked his main opponent, George Bush, by bringing the other non-invited candidates to the stage. When the moderator tried to turn off Reagan’s microphone, the governor’s angry shout of, “I am paying for this microphone, Mr. Green!” resounds through the story.
The exhaustive study of both the Republican and Democratic
primary races is followed by an equally meticulous recounting of
the general election between Reagan and Carter. In this epochal
race, the outcome of which ultimately transformed the entire
American political landscape and national direction, Shirley
reveals many of the criticisms that dogged Reagan throughout his
two terms as president, such as his advanced age (which Shirley
says Reagan’s enemies chewed on “like a mongrel dog on
a soup bone”), and his perceived “warmongering” and lack of
intelligence. Though all without merit, these attacks were
continuous by his Republican opponents, by President Carter, and by
the national media, and the repetition of these attacks aggravated
Reagan to no end.
As with the description of the GOP primary races, Shirley’s narrative of the general election flows liquidly between the two campaigns, examining their highs and lows. Reagan’s relentless optimism is as shiningly evident throughout the story as Carter’s depressing pessimism. The story is as exhilarating as it is illuminating, as the sense of expectation builds toward the famous lone debate between Reagan and Carter, in which Reagan quips, “There you go again,” and then on to election night, when Carter concedes before the polls are even closed and Reagan takes the call while standing in a towel just after a shower.
One of the many interesting subtexts of this book is a full accounting of former president Gerald Ford’s place in the 1980 election. Would he run in the primaries or would he not? Would he endorse a candidate or would he not? After Reagan won the nomination, where did Ford stand in relation to his 1976 opponent, whom the former president believed had lost him the election to Jimmy Carter four years previous? Also included is the full story of the nearly-accomplished-but-not-to-be “dream ticket” of Reagan-Ford at the Detroit convention. How did this potential pairing occur? Why would Reagan have considered such an arrangement? And how exactly did the idea fall apart to make way for George Bush as Reagan’s running mate? All of these questions are answered, and show the pragmatism as well as the wisdom of candidate Reagan.
Interestingly, it is a chapter that seems to stall the narrative flow that is actually one of the great moments in the book. For nearly 30 years there has been a mystery as to how and by whose hand the Reagan presidential campaign had obtained President Carter’s top-secret debate briefing books. There was even a congressional inquiry into the theft in 1983, with no solution reached. Craig Shirley has unearthed the answer, and reveals it to have been unsavory political operative — in fact a former Communist organizer — Paul Corbin. Corbin was a friend of the Kennedy family and an earnest supporter of Edward Kennedy’s bid to dethrone President Carter in 1980. Yet when Kennedy failed to win the nomination, Corbin’s hatred of Carter led him to assist the Reagan campaign.
Shirley shows how Corbin offered to help the campaign with organized labor, and that campaign manager Jim Baker (brought over from the Bush primary campaign) had a hand in bringing him in, despite his dislike of the man. Corbin claimed his position was to produce research reports on Florida, but in reality his intention was not so much to help Reagan as it was to destroy Carter. Shirley shows how Corbin obtained the books, who knew about it in the Reagan campaign, and how the 1983 congressional inquiry failed to name the thief.
This revelation is an impressive bit of historical sleuthing,
and a microcosm of the craftsmanship
of the entire book. Shirley’s sources are vast and impressive,
utilizing not only primary and secondary source books, but dozens
of archival collections from across the country; volumes of
contemporary news accounts in newspapers, periodicals, and
television; and nearly 200 interviews with all the major players
throughout the entire 1980 election season. These sources augment
the author’s clear and complete understanding of his subject
matter.
Shirley has proven himself a master of presidential campaign histories — a true heir to Theodore White, whose histories of the presidential campaigns of 1960, 1964, 1968, and 1972 are benchmarks for political literature and campaign histories. Shirley’s first book, Reagan’s Revolution: The Untold Story of the Campaign That Started It All (Nelson Current, 2005), tackled the history of Reagan’s quest to wrest the 1976 Republican presidential nomination away from then president Gerald R. Ford. That book was not merely an applause at near victory; it was an exhaustive study of the entire campaign, the national scene, the state of the political parties, the nature of every candidate and every state primary. It showed Reagan virtuous and flawed, winner and loser, and immaculately set the stage for Shirley’s latest offering in Rendezvous with Destiny. Likewise, this book will make readers hungry for a study of the 1984 presidential campaign, which Shirley has already begun, and which promises to be the concluding masterstroke in his triptych of Reagan campaign studies.
Perhaps George Will explains Rendezvous with Destiny best when he writes in his foreword to the book, “This book is both a primer on practical politics and a meditation on the practicality of idealism. It arrives, serendipitously, at a moment when conservatives are much in need of an inspiring examination of their finest hour.”
History vindicates truth; that is an axiom of the historical profession. We are now at the beginnings of the dispassionate historical study of Reagan’s legacy. It takes decades for contemporary passions to cool, for the memoirs of those who knew and worked with Reagan to be written and digested. Now comes the time of the research historian.
The historiography of all epochal figures runs the same schedule. Abraham Lincoln’s legacy was at first clouded by his martyrdom, then by the passions of the Civil War generation. As sociologist Barry Schwartz has so deftly explained his book, Abraham Lincoln and the Forge of National Memory, it took decades for Lincoln to be examined objectively, and it took a new generation of Americans to appreciate Lincoln for his faults as well as his virtues.
The study of Ronald Reagan is following this same path. It is now in the beginning stages of objective inquiry, where Reagan’s strengths and his weaknesses, his virtues as well as faults, are all under consideration to give a complete view of this iconic man. It is a crucial period when historical objectivity is coupled with the knowledge and reminiscences of people who knew Reagan. Craig Shirley’s Rendezvous with Destiny, just as in his previous book, Reagan’s Revolution, is a paradigm of this period of Reagan scholarship. It is an exhaustive study that will be at the very core of the Reagan bibliography for future generations, and will not anytime soon — if ever — be surpassed.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (97) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Jason Emerson
More Articles From Buy the Book
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/12/01/their-finest-hour
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
The Spectacle Blog
The #FreeKate Narrative Melts Down: Lies Exposed in Florida Teen Sex Case
Robert Stacy McCain | 5.25.13
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Lee| 12.1.09 @ 7:42AM
Reagan did not experience a "shocking loss" in the 1980 New Hampshire primary. He thumped Bush 50%-23%. Reagan did lose the Iowa caucuses to Bush a few weeks before the New Hampshire primary. The Iowa results were shocking and woke up Reagan. He overhauled his campaign, responded with a rigorous New Hampshire effort, and quashed Bush's 1980 hopes.
Alan Brooks| 12.1.09 @ 1:02PM
I know I digress too much, but what AS authors often write about is interesting historically, but not philosophically or practically.
Reagan and Thatcher demonstrate that the elderly can be the greatest statesmen (this is AS, so 'stateswomen' is out of place) of all.
Thatcher was actually even better than Reagan, but only because of the American over-celebritization of politics, which wasn't Reagan's fault.
It appears that Reagan was the last great American; Jack Kemp never got the chance.
Veep under Dole? an insult, Kemp ought to have been at the top of the ticket. And the GOP wants us to respect them? Since the Cold War ended they have been disappointing.
Margie| 12.1.09 @ 2:20PM
So where are the Marxists, the Maoists, the Socialists in the GOP, Alan?
Your vote for Obama, the Marxist-in Chief (as you claim) in 2012 is vote for the enemy of America.
Al Adab| 12.1.09 @ 2:47PM
Hi Margie, Hopefully they have been exorcised (purged) from the ranks. Although the party is essentially RINO, the recent candidate test from the RNC seems to indicate that the lesson of NY-23 is being taken to heart by Mr. Steele et al. It would be nice if one party stood for principle. We can hope. Keep up the good fight Margie we'll be reading.
Margie| 12.1.09 @ 3:24PM
Al Adab,
I still want to know. Where are they?
Maoist, Socialists? Fascists? Communists?
There are none.
Did you listen to Rush today? This is the question he asked. There are none. This wave of "Third Partiers" is a bunch of people going into a room and screaming. It will split the vote and cause Obama II. This is what I have been preaching. It is reality. Sarah Palin also said it in interviews all over the place. Rush said it today. The problem with the Republican Party is that we let it get taken over with "rino's". So do we split and run, abandon it? Or fight for it.
We better fight for it if we do not want to lose this country.
Al Adab| 12.1.09 @ 4:04PM
While many wish whistfully for such a new party, the fact remains that the two we have represent the fullest extent of voters. However, as you know it was only when the Conservative movement controlled the GOP in both 1980 and 1994 that the party enjoyed isccess. That is the situation which we must recreate in order to reestablish our Constitutional government.
In short, your answer is the correct one: fight or shut up. If we do not fight, future generations will curse our name for condeming them to a new dark age of tyranny instead of gifting them the light of freedom. Too much is at stake for us to falter.
Alan Brooks| 12.1.09 @ 3:07PM
"Your vote for Obama, the Marxist-in Chief (as you claim) in 2012 is vote for the enemy of America."
That's your interpretation. Obama is an American version of a social democrat, not a real Marxist.
A marxist, not a Marxist; just as Franco was a "fascist" (falangist), but not a Fascist. But, to be contradictory, you might turn out to be correct. I have nothing against Obama whatsoever, but some of his people are, as Jonah's great piece (was it also a book?) got it, liberal fascists. Actually, they are extreme illiberals.
Extreme is not hyperbole here.
I am no optimist, and nothing you write can change that. We are in for brave new world or clockwork orange. You can bank on it, Marge!
Alan Brooks| 12.1.09 @ 3:09PM
... guaranteed.
Unless Jesus comes back. But if he did he would vomit at the mess.
Margie| 12.1.09 @ 3:30PM
"I am no optimist, and nothing you write can change that. We are in for brave new world or clockwork orange. You can bank on it, Marge!"
~No thanks to you, Alan. You have no shame.
Did you see my Churchill quote to you? "I am an optimist. It does not seem too much use being anything else." So you are choosing to useless, then? Why do you choose to foist this traitor upon us with your intended vote, Alan?
Alan Brooks| 12.1.09 @ 3:36PM
"Did you see my Churchill quote to you? "I am an optimist. It does not seem too much use being anything else."
Churchill was tops, but he lived in a more naive era; even Mencken was influenced too much by outmoded Enlightenment rationalism (!)
Clone Coolidge and I'll vote for him. You wont find his sort of dignity anymore. WRONG CENTURY.
Alan Brooks| 12.1.09 @ 3:38PM
Mencken (!!) fell for it. That means the 20th century was even worse than it seems in retrospect.
Margie| 12.1.09 @ 3:45PM
Alan,
What do you mean "fell for it?" It is a very real and true principled thing to do: Do you want to be useless, or useful? Ugh! You are such a mealy-mouthed wimpy complainer! As Lucy used to say: Arrrgggghh!
Alan Brooks| 12.1.09 @ 4:49PM
There is no longer any morality, only situational ethics; hence optimism is no longer justified as it was in Churchill's day.
What don't you get about that? How many comments until gets into your skull?
Margie| 12.1.09 @ 4:58PM
Since you are resorting to nastiness I will leave you to it with one last remark.
You lie when you say there is no longer any morality. That is YOUR world, and you are welcome to it.
"But know that for all these things God will bring you into judgment." Ecc. 11:9.
Wonder how many comments it will take to get through to you?
Alan Brooks| 12.1.09 @ 5:17PM
"You lie when you say there is no longer any morality."
You don't know the difference between morality and situational ethics?
Margie| 12.1.09 @ 5:28PM
The issue is not about knowing the difference. The issue is that you are saying morality no longer remains. You know that's not true. Typical Toddard slithering. Perhaps you are Toddard. Hmm.
Alan Brooks| 12.1.09 @ 5:19PM
a. wrenching dislocation of the 21st century.
b. morality is discombobulated.
c. situational ethics is what remains.
Margie| 12.1.09 @ 3:50PM
"Clone Coolidge!" Ha! Now who's dreaming? Clone Reagan, clone Lincoln, clone TR., clone George Washington! Well, don't we all (some of us), wish? BTW~ I've read about Coolidge and like him, too. Yes, he was a rare man, indeed.
~Come on, Alan~ you talk about living in the real world. How can you do that when you are living in the past? Yet you say unless you can have these guys resurrected from the dead, you will vote for Obama? I believe you need a good dose of cold water poured over you. May I?
Alan Brooks| 12.1.09 @ 4:45PM
Maybe you're into watersports hanky panky, but not everyone else.
I have no intention of going near you.
Doctor Right| 12.1.09 @ 9:40AM
Lest we think 2012 is a "sure thing" against an incumbent President Obama, whose poll numbers will be in the mid-20's by then, we should remember the 1980 campaign against a similarly weak opponent and plan accordingly. Despite growing unease with Chairman Obama, there are no sure things in politics.
Pingback| 12.1.09 @ 10:23AM
Twitter Trackbacks for The American Spectator : Their Finest Hour [spectator.org] on links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Derek Leaberry| 12.1.09 @ 11:56AM
I hope Mr. Shirley explains the reasoning of putting George Bush on the '80 ticket. That fateful decision led to two disasterous presidencies and perpetuated the ruinous Bush Dynasty, which may yet raise its ugly head in the guise of Jeb Bush. By aiding the Bush family in 1980, Ronald Reagan created circumstances that led to the derailment of his movement and throttle his legacy.
Margie| 12.1.09 @ 2:22PM
After all, Jeb Bush would be soooo much worse than Obama, right?
Howard| 12.1.09 @ 4:16PM
I think history will be much kinder to both Bush Presidencies, especially Bush Sr. Much was accomplished under his watch. Sort of like how liberals disliked Ike, only to showing grudging admiration years later.
Al Adab| 12.1.09 @ 4:46PM
Bush 41 will eventually be remembered as the man who successfully negotiated the tempest of the collapse of the USSR. Remember the coup? His handleing of those events allowed them to proceed without resort to arms. When Yeltsin stood atop the tank it could have gone very (nuclear) bad for all the nations concerned. Thanks to Bush and US management, it didn't.
Credit due to Gorby for allowing East Europe to change without sending in the tanks. That action deserves recognition as well.
Alan Brooks| 12.1.09 @ 5:23PM
You can do better than the Bush family.
And you know it, too.
Margie| 12.1.09 @ 5:30PM
Then let's hear it for the Obama family, Alan.
Alan Brooks| 12.1.09 @ 6:18PM
But you have no alternative to the Obama family. Palin can't win in '16-- and you know very well she can't.
Alan Brooks| 12.1.09 @ 6:25PM
It took even Reagan 14 years after he was elected governor to become Prez. You can't feminize America in just a few years so that they would elect Palin for president in '12 or '16.
Alan Brooks| 12.1.09 @ 6:26PM
But after 2020? patience IS a virtue.
Alan Brooks| 12.1.09 @ 5:26PM
"I hope Mr. Shirley explains the reasoning of putting George Bush on the '80 ticket. That fateful decision led to two disasterous presidencies and perpetuated the ruinous Bush Dynasty, which may yet raise its ugly head in the guise of Jeb Bush..."
Finally, a voice of reason.
Margie| 12.1.09 @ 5:31PM
Alan loves the Marxist-in-Chief, that's why he says "finally a voice of reason."
Alan Brooks| 12.1.09 @ 6:21PM
Derek Leaberry is no fool.
For the record, Marge, will you deny that?
Alan Brooks| 12.1.09 @ 3:26PM
Yes, it would be so demoralizing to have another Bush as potus that the counterproductivity of it would negate any conceivable gain. Nothing to gloat about, though; it is very sad.
You people are masochists.
Margie| 12.1.09 @ 3:40PM
Of course it would be, Alan. So demoralizing.
You say you are voting for Obama. Who is the masochist, Alan?
Enemy, you say. Who is my enemy? More importantly, who is OUR enemy? It is you, the one who sits on the sidelines and cries "Woe is me! I must vote for Obama because no man is worth voting for in the Republican Party!" No wonder you are pals with S.lithering L.izard Toddard.
Alan Brooks| 12.1.09 @ 5:05PM
GOP score: 0 out of 4 since the Cold War ended.
btw, Toddard has a long way to go, but is v wise for his age.
Alan Brooks| 12.1.09 @ 5:14PM
"I must vote for Obama because no man is worth voting for in the Republican Party"
well, DUH!
Rush is now merely a shill for the GOP.
Margie| 12.1.09 @ 5:33PM
Liar. But Alan is a shill for the re-election of Obama.
Alan Brooks| 12.1.09 @ 6:15PM
"But Alan is a shill for the re-election of Obama."
But you offer no GOP alternative.
Who? Dubya had 8, not 4 years, as his dad did. Can't you do better? Why did McCain run last year? because he was in 'Nam? That's it? Dole ran because he got a withered arm from being in WWII? that's it?
You guys can't do better?
I could see it if it were the status quo, but now it is anti-conservative.
Alan Brooks| 12.1.09 @ 3:30PM
You want to be Christians, not self-abnegating hairshirts, lacerating yourselves by constructing a futile response to the Kennedy dynasty via the Bush family.
You have met your great enemy, and your great enemy is YOU.
Margie| 12.1.09 @ 3:57PM
To all:
"This 'there's no difference between the two parties' stuff is setting you up for a third party, and the guaranteed outcome of that is Democrat power in perpetuity. I know the Republican Party has let a lot of people down by not advocating conservatism or implementing it as they campaigned on, but there are clear differences. A third party is just building a room to scream in." -Rush
Alan Brooks| 12.1.09 @ 4:56PM
Bush
Bush
Dole
mcCain.
who next? Jeb, Jenna?
You ask us to trust the GOP, but you give no reason to do so.
Margie| 12.1.09 @ 5:04PM
I'm not asking to trust the GOP. I am saying to trust your fellow conservative who wants to help nominate conservatives to the Party. That's it. I am saying either we fight for it or give up. Like Churchill said:
"A man does what he must - in spite of personal consequences, in spite of obstacles and dangers and pressures - and that is the basis of all human morality."
~And don't try and say I'm not allowed to quote him because it's not the same world. It is a truth that will always hold true.
Alan Brooks| 12.1.09 @ 5:08PM
No, only situational ethics remains. The dislocation is more wrenching than you want to know.
Margie| 12.1.09 @ 5:24PM
Situational ethics~where the "ends justifies the means." Some hoity-toity BS. The same BS the pointy-headed Professors teach. "Everything's relative, eh? There is no black and white.
Wrong.
So you think that's all that's left?
No you don't. You just don't want to fight anymore.
Alan Brooks| 12.1.09 @ 5:30PM
Fight! stamp out violence, Marge. Kill it.
Margie| 12.1.09 @ 5:33PM
Or lay down and die, Alan.
Alan Brooks| 12.1.09 @ 5:36PM
You're not conservative, Marge, you are crypto-libertarian.
Margie| 12.1.09 @ 5:44PM
Sorry Toddard... oops I mean Alan. Marxist lovers don't recognize conservatives. Unless of course they are "Paleos." In their minds, that is the only true conservatism.
Alan Brooks| 12.1.09 @ 5:49PM
What do you know about fighting? women are civilized, they don't HAVE to fight.
But go ahead, elect Jeb in '16.
Do as thou wilt. It's your funeral, my little Margie.
Margie| 12.1.09 @ 5:55PM
Ridiculous, Alan. You're the one that insisted on bringing Jeb Bush into the conversation.
And by th way. As usual, you complain about "conserving"~ yet you fail to speak about what your Marxist leader is doing. Squandering? What is the debt now, Alan?
You are insane.
Alan Brooks| 12.1.09 @ 5:46PM
Conservatives CONSERVE something.
they don't squander a 128 B surplus into a mega B debt.
Why can't someone say "I'm not really conserving anything, only that which is for public consumption by chumps"?
Alan Brooks| 12.1.09 @ 5:34PM
Onward Christian Margie,
onward as to war,
with the cross of RINO,
marching on before.
Margie| 12.1.09 @ 5:36PM
Ah, there it is. Alan, since you proclaim you will be voting for Obama, do you have any credibility what so ever?
Alan Brooks| 12.1.09 @ 5:40PM
Does a GOP shill such as Rush have any credibility left?
He used to be a mouthful, now he is a mouthpiece.
Margie| 12.1.09 @ 5:47PM
Poor Alan. Resort to labels all you want. Your Socialist-Marxist-in-Chief with your vote will be elected again, thanks to you and like-minded people. But you will go on resorting to lies and labels to try to demean and degrade those of us who want to and intend to do the right thing for our country.
Alan Brooks| 12.1.09 @ 5:51PM
by electing jeb Bush in 2016? That's what YOU are doing.
Take the mote out of your eye first.
Margie| 12.1.09 @ 5:58PM
Toddard... rats, I mean Alan~ you will vote for Obama the dictator because you prefer a dictator.
I will vote for the Republican candidate, whoever it may be. Guaranteed he or she will not be a Marxist, a Socialist, a Maoist, or a Communist loving Chicago Thug.
Have a nice life.
Alan Brooks| 12.1.09 @ 6:06PM
"Guaranteed he or she will not be a Marxist, a Socialist, a Maoist, or a Communist loving Chicago Thug."
How about a RINO who squanders a 128B surplus?
Alan Brooks| 12.1.09 @ 6:03PM
You WILL have to start a third party to do anything.
The GOP is too conflicted, compromised; all a Latino group has to say is "we wont vote for you if... "
You take it from there.
So to what purpose call yourself conservative?
Al Adab| 12.1.09 @ 5:35PM
"To take arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing end them" Other choice is to dither. "Chose you this day whom you will serve..."
Alan Brooks| 12.1.09 @ 5:38PM
Then fight, Al Adab: kill for Jesus until the blood stops gouting and the shrieking has abated.
Fight your own wars.
Al| 12.1.09 @ 5:43PM
Alan, No one is asking you to. Iacocca said it best though, "Lead, follow, or get out of the way." Some of us albeit too few, think Freedom is worth defending rather than to "go quietly into that dark night" or the gas chamber for that matter. Better, like Cato, to die opposing tyranny than to submit. Better to "die on our feet than go on living on our knees"
Alan Brooks| 12.1.09 @ 5:54PM
I've heard that for the last 20 years, Al Adab, since the Berlin Wall came down.
20 years down the drain.
Alan Brooks| 12.1.09 @ 5:57PM
Adab,
I've heard so much about Cato, and Iacocca, and frogs being boiled slowly, and watering the tree of liberty with blood, etc, that it is wearing very thin and getting very old. Must we hear it in perpetua?
Al| 12.1.09 @ 6:06PM
Alan,
Of course, "If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen."
Alan Brooks| 12.1.09 @ 6:31PM
And what if nothing is being baked in the kitchen except anti-conservative conservatism?
Then you have no choice but to exit.
Alan Brooks| 12.1.09 @ 6:32PM
that is to say anticonservative 'conservatism"
A mud pie.
Alan Brooks| 12.1.09 @ 6:33PM
... a nothingburger on no-wheat.
Alan Brooks| 12.1.09 @ 6:35PM
You think I don't like Bush?
I like him. However, he was in over his head.
Pingback| 12.1.09 @ 4:16PM
A Tasty Box of Blogging Bon-Bons For You! links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Howard| 12.1.09 @ 4:20PM
I look forward to reading this book. It is true that what looked inevitable now was not so. Reagan had to first defeat Bush in the primaries. And in the general election he had to deal with Liberal Media Bias (some things never change), as well as John Anderson running as an Independent. A key turning point was the debate, where Reagan came across as Presidential in spirit and demeanor. And Jimmy Carter came across as usual as a sanctimonious jackass. After that debate Carters support melted like an ice cream on a July day.
Alan Brooks| 12.1.09 @ 4:59PM
Carter made William Henry Harrison look like Washington.
Alan Brooks| 12.1.09 @ 5:02PM
LBJ made Nixon look like Coolidge.
LBJ was the worst president we'll ever have-- at least you'd better hope so.
Alan Brooks| 12.1.09 @ 4:52PM
Carter was only elected in '76 because of Watergate.
Carter's term ended January 21st 1977.
Pingback| 12.1.09 @ 9:02PM
Rendezvous with Destiny | Be John Galt links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Paul| 12.2.09 @ 10:33PM
Dear Lee,
Iowa is the Hawkeye State, where Reagan did indeed suffer a "shocking loss" in 1980. FYI, New Hampshire is the Granite State.
Alan Brooks| 12.4.09 @ 3:59AM
You people will give us a Jeb Bush presidency after Obama's second term ends.
You know very well the demographics have changed, and so the GOP is no longer as it was in Reagan's day. It is more Mexican-oriented; for one thing, latino-ized.
And that is just for starters.
Trackback| 12.8.09 @ 10:10PM
credit repair nh, on credit repair nh, links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
www.us-bapeoutlet.com | 4.2.10 @ 10:08PM
www.us-bapeoutlet.com
san jose movers | 7.3.10 @ 2:49AM
This is the truth. His great weakness was his penchant for coasting through a campaign if he was not challenged.
San Francisco Movers | 5.7.12 @ 2:16PM
This was a great book. I highly recommend it to anyone who enjoys reading about American politics.