The American Spectator : Ford versus Reagan: The Sequel

Text Size

Political Hay

Ford versus Reagan: The Sequel

By Jeffrey Lord on 5.24.11 @ 6:08AM

Iconic battle with fanatic moderates, liberals replayed in attacks on Israel, talk radio, Roger Ailes.

“But several of his characteristics seemed to rule him out as a serious challenger. One was his penchant for offering simplistic solutions to hideously complex problems.”

”We have very little in common.”

“I knew…that trying to satisfy these (right-wing) zealots would doom any general election hopes…”
— Former President Gerald Ford on Ronald Reagan and conservatives

Gerald Ford didn’t get it.

A nicer man you could not meet. Wonderful family, kind, hearty, outgoing. Your basic All-American — literally, as a football player (center) for the University of Michigan, and certainly figuratively.

But Gerald Ford had a fatal political flaw, one that is aptly described in another fashion by James W. Ceaser in a recent Wall Street Journal review of Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Gordon Wood’s new book entitled The Ideas of America: Reflections on the Birth of the United States.

The Visionary Generation was the title of Ceaser’s review of Wood’s book on the ideas behind the Revolution and the men we know as the Founding Fathers. The description could easily be applied to the now iconic battle between President Ford and Ronald Reagan for the 1976 Republican presidential nomination. A battle that Ford won on his way to losing a much larger war.

That war?

An epic confrontation over the role of government — both in American life and around the world.

A crusade to speak plainly the principles of liberty and tyranny (to borrow the title from our friend Mark Levin’s bestseller) that some wish to obfuscate — whether discussing the size and scope of American government or facing the stark reality of evil as manifested by the Soviet Union in 1976 or the Israel-hating terrorist group Hamas today.

Says Ceaser of Wood:

The historian has the advantage of hindsight. He can see the development of an idea or principle in a way that the participants along the way never can…. For this reason, Mr. Wood has conceived the proper period for studying the Revolution as running from the 1760s through the Jacksonian era, since this time span allows one to see the full shape of the event.

Which is to say, the battle over the acceptance of the democratic principle (as Ceaser terms it) was fought and won not simply in the seven-year time span of the American Revolution but over a much longer period of almost eighty years, from 1760 until Andrew Jackson’s final term in the White House came to an end in March of 1837.

In a strikingly similar fashion one can easily look back and realize that what is now known to history as the “Reagan Revolution” began not in January of 1981 when Reagan himself took the presidential oath. Nor did it end eight years later when he left the White House. In fact, it began in fits and starts roughly with the emergence of the British philosopher John Locke and picking up intellectual grounding and authority as it made its way through the centuries developed by a group that includes everybody from the English-Irish statesman philosopher Edmund Burke to the Founding Fathers, Abraham Lincoln and on to the 20th century. With the advent of the American Progressive movement and the presidencies of both Roosevelts, Woodrow Wilson and (yes) Herbert Hoover (a Progressive Republican), by the time a young William F. Buckley arrived on the scene in the early 1950s with his famous line of standing athwart history yelling “Stop!” the idea of an ever-expanding state was not only mainstream it was the mainstream. In both political parties, the media, academia and religion as well.

It was an idea that was hopelessly doomed, considering the inevitable massive failures in a philosophy that was succinctly labeled by its foes as “tax and spend” domestically or mocked on national security with the slogan “Better Dead Than Red.” Sooner or later progressivism/liberalism was destined to find itself perched at the very edge of the cliff where Americans find themselves and their country today. Out of cash and out of credibility. But in the day, all manner of people thought this was a big no-never-mind. And if the Goldwater — Rockefeller fight for the 1964 GOP nomination was in retrospect an enormous political warning flare, the Ford-Reagan fight was, in retrospect, the tipping point when the balance began to shift.

Page: 1 2 3 >

About the Author

Jeffrey Lord is a former Reagan White House political director and author. He writes from Pennsylvania at jlpa1@aol.com.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (66) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Brian Mc| 5.24.11 @ 7:00AM

"Business as usual, going on."

Very insightful, Mr. Lord. Moderates better realize and quickly that there is no more wiggle room left, this 'going along to get along'.

This gleeful statism seems to be winning the day; and if that's the case, their blindness to reality does not allow them to see that if they are 'winning', then in the whole we are losing. My question is: might it be too late for another Rondal Reagan? Can there possibly be someone out there who can take on the gargantuan task of righting this ship? Can this individual pull all the heads from the sand in time to give said individual the help they will need to take us back to the basic tenets of our founding documents?

Optimism is much required with the current situation haunting the White House...and those that back it.

Anthony M| 5.24.11 @ 8:46PM

There will not be another Reagan, can't be, because there never really was a Reagan revolution. Taxes raised without corresponding spending cuts, humiliation in Lebanon, continuation of abortion on demand, affirmative action, the list goes on and on. We on the right are deluding ourselves if we believe we've made any progress at all. Bush 1-liberal, Clinton-liberal,Bush 2-moderate to liberal, and Obama-liberalisms dream. We've got Limbaugh, it's true and God bless him, but we've lost the war and eventually will end up like the National Front in France, a small voice shouting out in vain.

Chuck| 5.24.11 @ 7:07AM

Republicans in general are poor politicians. Reagan on the other hand received his political training in the Democratic Party. Brilliant campaigner and speaker defined himself first then dissected the opposition and gave voters a clear choice. Also humble in defeat (1976) unlike Rockefeller (1964). Republicans need to implement the Machiavellian approach to find presidential candidates in the mode of Ronald Reagan otherwise the revolving door of mediocre presidents and losers will continue frontrunner Romney proves my point.

voted against carter| 5.24.11 @ 8:06PM

You also have to remember Reagan was an actor for 20 years BEFORE he became a politician. This is one reason he was able to LOOK so in control (which he ALSO was) He understood the theatrics of politics better than ANYone else at the time.

Keep the message simple and easy to understand. EVIL EMPIRE. TEAR DOWN THIS WALL. THERE HE GOES,.. AGAIN,..

Reagan WAS a MASTER politician, there is NO denying that.

Today we MIGHT be witnessing the birth of the NEXT MASTER politician in the Reagan school but that remains to be seen in that she might not run and America will be poorer for it if she does not.

Clint| 5.24.11 @ 7:31AM

"Reagan ran for President a couple of times before finally winning in 1980. In fact, when Ronald Reagan ran for the Republican nomination in 1976 he was opposed by the Republican leadership and was even considered a “kook” by many in the party. Sound familiar? At that time, only four Republican congressman supported Reagan and Ron Paul was one of them."

And, We Pennsylvania Tea Party Patriots Chased Away The Perennial RINO-CINO Ruling Elite Fop Arlen Specter with Our Tea Party Candidate Pat Toomey.

The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates.

Carpe Diem.

Michael Tomlinson| 5.24.11 @ 8:06AM

Clint how do you like that Ron Paul has done a flip on illegal aliens and is now offering his own version of amnesty? Is this because he's trying to get to the left of Garry Johnson or is he just going back to his 1988 Liberalterian roots?

William R| 5.24.11 @ 9:31AM

Ron Paul has not flipped on immigration. He's against citizenship(amnesty) for illegals and birthright citizenship.

Michael Tomlinson| 5.24.11 @ 9:49AM

Are you sure? He wants to give them green cards with an asterisk or no citizenship until unspecified mandates have been met, but he refuses to clarify what those mandates are. That's pretty vague. Sort of sounds like the mush Obama spewed when he was in El Paso.

Could this be the old Ron Paul who in 1988 called for shutting down the Border Patrol making a comeback so he can get to the left of Garry Johnson? If you’re a liberalterian Johnson is clearly the far more attractive candidate and true to his principles.

William R| 5.24.11 @ 10:17AM

I have his book. There is no amnesty. BS from Tancredo. He supports Arizona type enforcement. Police should be able to ask if someone is legal. What got people like Tancredo upset is that Paul said using the Army to round up 10 million people just isn't going to happen. But enforcing the laws already on the books is fine. If all welfare is ended for illegals then they'll begin to self deport.

simon templar| 5.24.11 @ 10:51AM

Better yet, this issue would be cleared up in about two days by enforcing the law relative to employers and forcing stiff penalties for breaking it. No job, no illegal.

SonOfSam| 5.24.11 @ 12:35PM

And maybe we could have a bounty, er "finders fee" for patriotic citizens who report these devious SOBs. I bet there's thousands of unemployed AMERICANS who would have no problem dropping a dime on the jackasses who fired them just so they could bring in near slave labor

Mimi| 5.24.11 @ 7:43AM

We should worry when Romney is getting over 50%. Our signal to GO will happen when we see....Highly principled, call out corruption (evil) for what it is. Hopefully we won't have to go 3rd party. The BIG question is ....will the moderates go along with the CONSERVATIVE wing as we have always done for them, for a change.

Michael Tomlinson| 5.24.11 @ 8:09AM

Mimi don't lose heart. Herman Cain is now #1 in a new Zogby poll. Of course, moderate Chris Christie is #2 and then Romney. Still anyone the GOP runs will be better than Obama.

SonOfSam| 5.24.11 @ 9:38AM

Hey there Mike,
saying that anyone the GOP runs will be better than Obama is a little like saying "anything's better than being a traitor". We need to and indeed CAN DO, a lot damned better than that. Or as the saying used to be: "a choice, not an echo".

But as you say Mike, take heart, fellow patriots! Daniels is out, and Romney will never get the nod, simply because he is a life sized Ken doll: all plastic and no gonads whatsoever. (Nice smile though. Impeccable hair too). And we have plenty of true conservatives running, beginning with Cain and certainly including Bachman and Palin, any one of whom will be "better than Obama"

Michael Tomlinson| 5.24.11 @ 9:53AM

Sam,
Obama is so bad I've heard solid conservatives whine even Hillary would be better. Now that's bad.

Romney lost when running against McCain so I take heart that a more solid candidate will emerge and Obama will be history.

SonOfSam| 5.24.11 @ 10:17AM

Mike,
solid conservatives don't whine
real Presidents don't bow
true patriots never surrender

We will have a rock solid candidate this time, but its up to us to make it happen

Occam's Tool| 5.24.11 @ 2:54PM

Cain.
Palin.
Pawlenty.
West.
BTO. (If Michelle doesn't use "taking care of business" as her campaign theme song, she's missing out.)

All of them fine, Conservative candidates, two of them from Minnesota. It's going to look good. Mr. Lord is, as usual, very right.

wodiej| 5.24.11 @ 7:49AM

We are going to have to fight for the common sense conservative, independent out of the establishment candidate if we want this person. No one is going to hand it to us. They will deride us, insult us, play reverse psychology on us and use ever devious, corrupt practice to defeat us. As Edmund Burke said once "evil prevails when good men do nothing." It won't be enough to post a comment on a blog. We must donate not only our money but our time, energy and enthusiasm. Go to Organize 4 Palin and get involved with a local chapter in your state now to find out what you can do.

God bless the USA

Cro-Magnon| 5.24.11 @ 7:56AM

Thank you again Mr. Lord for another educational, cathartic and highly entertaining stroll down memory lane.

The solutions really are simple for serious people.

Occam's Tool| 5.24.11 @ 2:55PM

Actually, given the chaos of the real world, setting simple overaching approaches down is all a President can do.

Petronius| 5.24.11 @ 8:33AM

An erstwhile friend who is a barber by trade sees elections in terms of who gets to screw the voters through which orifice. The statist pols want the praise that the media gives Obama, and the power to micro-manage everything for their benefit. In their minds and hearts, liberty is for them and no others. And having subjugated the electorate, they're not about to let them up off the mat. There will be no real change until the beltway establishment is destroyed. And those people cannot be voted out.

ds80| 5.24.11 @ 8:55AM

The slouching towards statism has its roots as far back as when fig leaves became fashion: it is just another manifestation of the "let someone else do it" brand of personal responsibility.

Dee See| 5.24.11 @ 8:56AM

Ford was brought in by the Rockefeller/CFR
'men behind the curtains' to seal the Nixon/MAO
sellout.

Not incidentally ushered in with
Nelson Rockefeller himself at his side,
and, not incidentally, certainly
the first open adulterer to be accepted to such
high office as a 'conservative' ----itself sealing
the Tavistock/Stanford Research/Rockefeller
et al 60's cultural subversion op.

As a side note, to give us a better idea of
the thoroughness of the programming of
that era ---the very year of Nixon in Peking
saw Hollywood tellingly featuring a musical
about decadence and abortion (Cabaret) ---an effective
'we're the greatest' flag fetish chain puller
(Patton) ----and, most revealing, a reworking
of the, for the time, rather anachronistic
big crime picture ---distinguished mainly by its
unprecedented 'that's the way it is' ending
(The Godfather).

A couple of years later we had the 'sensitive'
picture of the year featuring a brazen, cocky
'average Joe' inciting masculine assertiveness
in an insane asylum ---then to be thwarted
and lobotomized by a castrating female nurse,
and smothered by a large, not incidentally very Chinese looking,
native American (One Flew over the Cuckoos Nest).

REALLY make a study of 'emotive sequencing'
and 'predictive programming' ----since they use it
on us all the time.

----AS ports on BOTH our coasts and the Panama
Canal are handed over ---along with the American
economy, and with tainted meds, water, food
and media all bent on dumb down, sterillity and EUGENICS
---------------we can only count the days to
HUAC meets NUREMBERG.

JimP| 5.24.11 @ 9:06AM

Great column and accurate. Thanks Mr. Lord.

Deborah D | 5.24.11 @ 9:16AM

Thanks for this, Mr. Lord. Yes, it seems conservatives have to battle not just the liberals, but also those in their party who just can't seem to digest what conservatism really is -- it's about freedom. Freedom from coercive government. Freedom from excessive taxes and control. Freedom to start a business without some form of government putting up roadblocks. Those in politics for only one thing -- their own pursuit of their own power, don't give a fig about conservative values. That's why we are all sick to death of professional politicians -- from both sides of the aisle. Let's hope Reagan's spirit shines on our candidates and the American people so we can return our country from the brink.

Al Adab| 5.24.11 @ 11:03AM

Morning DD:
From the very beginning Conservatives have had to battle for control of the GOP. Remember how Rockefeller and Romney opposed Goldwater? Remember how Ford adherents Cheny and Rumsfeld opposed Reagan? Yet, it is only when Conservatives preponderate that the GOP has enjoyed true success ala 1980, 1994. Conservatism is the font of ideas and Liberty. If that is our goal then The Movement must be our home. "Let;s grow up Conservatives...".

Deborah D | 5.24.11 @ 11:41AM

Amen, Al. It's time for the big-boy pants! :) Then we can roll up our sleeves and get to work.

Melvin| 5.24.11 @ 9:26AM

I don't know what I loath more Socialist Democrats or Progressive Compassionate Republicans. When I hear the term Compassionate Conservatism I just want to slap one silly.
Compassionate, Progressive, Moderate they're all from the same lump of bull squeeze. It is just an easy out for the Republican who wants to compromise on their convictions as a Conservative.
I didn't realize how dangerous Compassionate, Progressive, Moderate Republican politicians were, until their vicious attacks on Ronald Reagan, and their blood vow to destroy any Conservative candidate in the future.
It is just plain pitiful to observe these Republicans stand in line just like Senator John McCain did and run for President not because of being a Conservative and standing and fighting for this political belief, but because, it was his turn.
Who the hell runs for President because it was his turn. It wasn't even a contest, John McCain's lack of Conservative conviction gave him absolutely nothing to run on.
At times he sounded more like candidate Obama, than Candidate Obama.
The really sad truth to this story is, that we very well be stuck with another squishy Republican candidate, that the Lords of the RNC handpick because it's his turn.

SonOfSam| 5.24.11 @ 10:19AM

If we had waited for "our turn" America would still be a British colony

Nunya| 5.24.11 @ 12:07PM

Melvin, couldn't agree more. The RNC cares more about who's the next in line than finding a true conservative to make a candidate. Isn't it interesting that the last TRUE conservative we had in office won by a LANDSLIDE? Isn't it interesting that the RNC keeps putting forth "moderate" conservatives who CAN'T WIN? I would rather vote for someone I didn't like who stood on PRINCIPLE than vote for someone I did like who had none. Though, now that I think about it I doubt I would like someone who can't stand on principle....

C Smith| 5.24.11 @ 9:44AM

On Yom Kippur, Israel’s most holy Shabbat (1973), the forces of 13 Arab nations, and Cuban and Palestinian troops converged on Israel to destroy her.

On that fateful Day of Atonement, the Israelis were outnumbered and outgunned by staggering margins. In Sinai, for example, exactly 450 Israeli troops faced an invading force of 100,000 Egyptians, who enjoyed a superiority in artillery of 40-1 and a force of 1,350 tanks against Israel’s 91. On the Golan, the Syrians had eight tanks for every Israeli tank, and even higher ratios of troops, guns and planes; later the Syrians would be bolstered by contingents of Iraqis, Jordanians, Palestinians, Saudi Arabians, Kuwaitis and Moroccans. In addition, the Arabs were equipped with the latest in Soviet rocketry, against which Israel had virtually no defense (Matt Nesvisky, The Lessons We Learned in 1973, The Jewish Journal, 2004-09-24).

Of those young men who stood between Israel and death, Golda Meir later recalls, ‘They fought and fell like lions’ (Peter Colon, The Yom Kippur War, Israel My Glory Oct/Nov 1997 p.15, emphasis added).

After the first day, the enemy in the Golan with tactical, logistical, and numerical superiority, the element of surprise, and Soviet supplied night-vision virtually destroyed Israeli resistance and was headed toward a strategic crossroads and Israel’s divisional headquarters. During the night, Lieutenant Zvika Greengold, a young blond son of Holocaust survivors, unattached to any unit, hitchhiked to the conflagration. Removing the dead from a Centurion tank, he took command.

For the next 20 hours, Zvika Force [koach Tzvika], as he came to be known on the radio net, fought running battles with Syrian tanks—sometimes alone, sometimes as part of a larger unit, changing tanks half a dozen times as they were knocked out. He was wounded and burned but stayed in action and repeatedly showed up at critical moments from an unexpected direction to change the course of a skirmish (Abraham Rabinovich, Shattered Heights, The Jerusalem Post, September 25, 1998).

His and a few remaining Israeli tanks succeeded in stalling the enemy who apparently thought they were confronting a superior force. Concurrently Prime Minister Golda Meir, conceding the Golan, began implementing the Samson Option (Judges 16:30):

During the 1973 Yom Kippur war, Israel came close to making a nuclear preemptive strike when it seemed to be facing defeat at the hands of Syrian armor, according to a half dozen former U.S. diplomats and intelligence officials familiar with the still-classified incident…. According to a former senior U.S. diplomat, by Oct. 8, Israel's northern front commander, Maj. Gen. Yitzak Hoffi, had informed Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Dayan that he couldn't hold out much longer against the 14,000 Syrian tanks rolling through Israeli defenses on the Golan Heights. The source, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that Dayan was ‘attacked by acute panic’ and declared to advisers: ‘This is the end of the Third Temple.’ But if Israel was to perish, it would take Damascus and Cairo with it. According to a former senior CIA official, who also spoke on condition of anonymity, Dayan sought an urgent meeting with Prime Minister Golda Meir and secured her authorization to arm 13 intermediate-range Jericho missiles with nuclear warheads. Eight F-4 Phantom fighter aircraft were also to be given nuclear arms, former senior U.S. officials said (Richard Sale (UPI Terrorism Correspondent), Yom Kippur: Israel's 1973 nuclear alert, United Press International, 9/16/2002, emphasis added).

Unlike the Army of One recruiting ploy, the day is coming when every Jew of Israel will literally be a Zvika Force of One:

In that day will I make the governors of Judah like an hearth of fire among the wood, and like a torch of fire in a sheaf; and they shall devour all the people round about, on the right hand and on the left: and Jerusalem shall be inhabited again in her own place, even in Jerusalem. The LORD also shall save the tents of Judah first,that the glory of the house of David and the glory of the inhabitants of Jerusalem do not magnify themselves against Judah. In that day shall the LORD defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and he that is feeble among them at that day shall be as David; and the house of David shall be as God, as the angel of the LORD before them (Zechariah 12:6-8, emphasis added).

http://theisraelofgod.blogspot.....f-one.html

PCC| 5.24.11 @ 11:01AM

Nice post.

14,000 Syrian tanks?

I doubt it.

Stuart Koehl| 5.24.11 @ 11:40AM

He means 14,000 tanks and other armored fighting vehicles, including APCs, IFVs, engineer combat vehicles and self-propelled artillery pieces. The Syrians deployed approximately 2000 tanks on the Golan Heights in two tank divisions, three infantry divisions, three independent tank brigades and one independent mechanized brigade.

At the beginning of the war, the IDF Northern Front had deployed only 36th Armored Division, consisting of the 7th and 188th (Barak) Armored Brigades and the 1st (Golani) Infantry Brigade, a total of some 150 Sh'ot (modified Centurion) main battle tanks and about 8500 men.

Those are long odds, without any exaggeration.

Chef Schnauzer| 5.24.11 @ 11:39AM

I remember the story of one of HKissinger and RMNs meetings on this war, HK relayed Meir requested several of our largest air cargo containers filled with material. RN asked Kissinger how many we had (about 11) and he said, "I'm going to take just as much flak for sending one plane as I will for sending 11 - get them airborne...." Good life lesson too. 'Course had Israel launched is one of those 'what ifs' of history to enjoy in the last quiet moments of the evening.

Occam's Tool| 5.24.11 @ 2:58PM

Nixon Saved Israel. May his name be blessed. Stuart is quite right on the staggering odds the Israelis faced on the Golan. For a good read on the subject, note Khalani's "The Heights of Courage."

Al Adab| 5.24.11 @ 3:18PM

You know OT, the Moslem world might just want to thank the Israeli army for, when in 1967, that army took Jerusalem and the temple mount - it was the Israeli commander on the scene who prevented the destruction of Al Aqsa mosque and The Dome of the Rock. Thank you for small favors. BTW, do not the agressors in war assume the risks of success or failure? Who attacked Whom in '67?

William R| 5.24.11 @ 9:52AM

"To Reagan, the Soviets were, as he later famously said, an "evil empire" who " reserve unto themselves the right to commit any crime, to lie, to cheat…" Hence Helsinki was a worthless enterprise. An agreement with liars and cheats."

No President negotiated with the Soviets more than Reagan. While he might have used heated rhetoric, Reagan was very pragmatic when it came to the evil empire.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06.....ocons.html

As for Israel and 1967 borders. It was official Reagan administration policy for Israel to get out of the West Bank and stop building settlements.

http://www.time.com/time/magaz.....00,00.html

SonOfSam| 5.24.11 @ 10:24AM

He negotiated from a position of STRENGTH. Strength of mind, of character, of courage as well as strength of men and material.

What's more, he wasn't negotiating for the sake of yap yapping -- like the Fords and other detenteniks before him-- but to maneuver the Evil Empire to the point of unconditional surrender. He always had that as his goal, and everything was subordinate to that goal. Or as Reagan himself put it "We win, they lose"

read your history

William R| 5.24.11 @ 10:35AM

Sure he negotiated from a position of strength, but his goal was to get rid of nuclear weapons. Reagan was anything but the hardliner some on the right try to make him out to be.

Reagan's foreign policy can be described as cautious, restrained and prudent ====conservative. Not the bellicose militarism that has captured much of the right today.

SonOfSam| 5.24.11 @ 12:40PM

No, his goal was to get rid of "MAD" -- mutually assured destruction -- not to "get rid of nuclear weapons". Unlike our current commander in chief, Ronald Reagan lived in the real world, where you can't stuff the genie back into the bottle.

As for the "bellicose militarism" Reagan would have been more action, less talking about it. Gaddafi is only alive and thumbing his nose at Obumbles because Reagan didnt manage to kill the son of a bitch, not because he wasn't actively trying to get him

You need to read your history, and actually learn what you're talking about

William R| 5.24.11 @ 1:42PM

You just don't what you're talking about. End of story. I suggest you read Reagan's memoirs. I have.

http://www.progressinaction.co.....-policies/

Reagan bombed Gaddafi after the Berlin bombing, but he used the military less than any modern President. Libya, Grenada, and Beirut. After our marines got killed in Beirut Reagan pulled out and called it his biggest mistake.

DRed| 5.24.11 @ 1:55PM

“A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. The only value in our two nations possessing nuclear weapons is to make sure they will never be used. But then would it not be better to do away with them entirely?”

“[M]y dream is to see the day when nuclear weapons will be banished from the face of the Earth.”

Ronald Reagan

Die Fledermaus| 5.24.11 @ 7:39PM

Banished as in obsolete for MAD, thus his pursuit of a missle sheild.

He knew there would also be the chance of some small nuke somewhere. Of course, he might not have envisioned N Korea or Pakistan having nukes but probably would have done more to stop them.

Occam's Tool| 5.24.11 @ 2:59PM

William. I was there, a member of YAF, during Reagan's time. He was as bellicose as necessary, and we did win. You counsel submission to baby killers.

William R| 5.24.11 @ 3:42PM

Tool Job, you should move to Israel and get out of my country.

Alfred M. Lilienthal was right!

http://desip.igc.org/fromWhatPriceIsrael.html

Nick| 5.24.11 @ 7:46PM

William R.,

It's not your country. Do you have a receipt?

Also, conservatives never claimed that Mr. Reagan was a hardliner. That's commie, drive-by media of the '80s, propaganda. Why do you use their lingo?

Al Adab| 5.24.11 @ 3:46PM

Actually fellows, it was the posession of a military second to none coupled with the willingness to use it (along with our enemies perception we would) which ultimately made its use unnecessary and success possible. Remember that "Walk softly and carry a big stick" idea?

George S| 5.24.11 @ 12:51PM

Freezing settlements in the West Bank does not equate with returning to the 1967 borders. It was also the policy of the Reagan administration to permit settlements where necessary to retain defensible borders.

Israel would have no problems returning to the 1967 borders if the Palestinians acknowledge Israel's right to exist, cease all attacks and drop right of return (i.e., unconditional surrender). Only a president who lives in a fantasy world would ask Israel to return to the 67 borders without all three of those conditions being met --- at the very minimum.

Dee See| 5.24.11 @ 10:01AM

---Enough with the cunning media psy ops
---back to Eisenhower, or, better yet, putting
the well-meaning but, we now learn, Globalst
tool Hoover aside --------Calvin Coolidge.

You remember Coolidge, the man who stepped
in after the fierce opponent of the then recently
ILLEGALLY established private 'Federal Reserve'
Warren G Harding had that 'sudden' heart attack---

TURK| 5.24.11 @ 10:29AM

Recently there was an Am Spec piece--Mitch Over Mitt. It was a piece pushing the Rino/Bush crowd's choice for '12--Daniels. He's gone. Now they're lusting after Huntsman. They are predictable. Have been since the '30s.

I would like to reccomend a despositive piece on the republican rino/country clubbers: THE FUTURE OF CONSERVATISM by M. Stanton Evans. Mr. Evans was there for the 63-64 Conservative defeat of the libs who had controlled the party back to the 30's. They pushed loser candidates because their goal was to lose. They treasured losing and being nicey nice with the leftist democrats. They enjoyed being in the minority because winning was inconsistent with the 'Markus of Queensbury Rules. So too their attitude with the murderous soviets---ie Ford and his overt trashing of the long suffering Solzhenitsyn, the ultimate anti -communist.

In '08 we rolled over and nominated McCain a perfect, second fiddle to the D's with his 'reach across the aisle nonsense. And with Mr Lord's reference to McCain and his torture crap and his me me me career, one has only to look at the June '09 positions of Bud Day and Leo Thorsness 2 POW's from the Viet Nam horrors, who wear the Congressional Medal of Honor. They expressed disgust with McCain and admonished him to the effect that they didn't need him for a definition of torture! Bud was one of those who nursed McCain from near death.

This time around there is a new element. It is remeniscent of '63-64. The rino's will not be tolerated as representatives of the opposition to the leftist(with Obama beyond leftist) democrats. 2010 illustrated the reality of this. Daniels exit illustrated this. Family? I don't think so! More like realistic.

May I repeat. Stan Evans book-The Future of Conservatism, is a textbook on the 80+ yr history of the rino's and what motivates them(to the extent they are ever motivated). Tho out of print, it is available used, on the internet. It has a catchy dust jacket-An artist rendering of Rushmore with Buckley and Reagan on the front.

Albert| 5.24.11 @ 10:59AM

"One was his penchant for offering simplistic solutions to hideously complex problems."

This quote from Ford is amazing in its backwardness. Reagan offered practical solutions to problems instead of hiding behind the "process" of addressing problems without finding any real solutions. To such as Ford, it is the "hideously complex" aspect of problems that is most appealing. The joy of a politician such as Ford is the endless "negotiations" and studies looking for solutions, but which are never found. Ford thought Reagan simplistic because Reagan cut through all that "Bravo Sierra" and offered actual, practical solutions. But in the real scheme of things, there is nothing so "simplistic" as Ford's "WIN" button campaign ("Whip Inflation Now!") When Reagan was President, Americans were becoming more prosperous and secure and we felt better AS Americans. After Bush the Elder pissed that away, which led to the era of Clinton-Bush II-Obama, we now see a falling America, as prosperity declines, security withers away, and multi-trillion dollar federal vote-buying by Democrats is the only real growth sector. And the new "Jerry Fords" have again taken the Republican stage, trying their damndest to suppress the true voice of the People (and one could say Reagan's legacy), the Tea Party.

Peppermint Tea| 5.24.11 @ 11:25AM

Exactly Albert.
Since Reagan was elected (and I remember how the media and left did everything they could to mock him as simple minded), I have realized that all real solutions to problems are simple. Even though all problems are complex and grow more complicated as we put of the simple way of addressing them. Thank God for Reagan, I think that without him and Volcker, the year 1984 would have looked like 2012 is going to look. In other words, our republic would have been over 30 years earlier.

Anthony| 5.24.11 @ 11:53AM

I find this pincer movement between the establishment RINOs on the one hand, and the leftists on the other, in their attempt to define who our candidate should be, disgusting and distracting, to say the least.
I am sick and tired of this beltway game of parsing which candidate "plays well" with the moderates.
This country is in deep, deep, trouble. Another 4 years of Obozo and you can kiss the Constitutional republic of America good-bye. To a lesser degree, the same applies with a RINO, who will only slow the progress of our destruction.
To hell with the RINOs; and surely to hell with the left. We need the strongest, boldest, most articulate hard core conservative we can find and plow right ahead. Take no prisoners, full speed ahead. Go right at Obozo and keep up the pressure.
I'd rather lose with a stauch conservative than with a back stabbing RINO, who will only postpone the inevitable. It's time to make our stand, our country is at the precipice of disaster. If Obozo is re-elected because we have put up a conservative, well, at least we stood our ground. Some Americans will finally reap the consequences of their stupidity, if they're not already.
Either way, we conservatives will be there to pick up the pieces after Obozo causes a complete break down of our culture.
We will be the rebuilders of America, without the left, this time.

Nunya| 5.24.11 @ 1:04PM

Agreed. Put someone in who has a spine and stands on principle, who is not afraid to call it as he or she sees it, and who has a vision. That's what Reagan was, and we need that in spades.

Al Adab| 5.24.11 @ 3:14PM

Gosh Nunya, do you mean someone who puts principle over pragmatism, who believes in the Rule of Law, Free Markets and Limited Government? That would be a dream come true. Oh, Wait. Once we founded an entire nation on those principles didn't we?

Frisbee| 5.24.11 @ 8:29PM

I agree with you Anthony, and well said. Whether Obama gets re-elected or is replaced with some RINO, the effect will be the same. The game lately has been that the Dems push the envelope, while the Repubs let things stew in the new status quo. What we need is a Reagan in the Whitehouse, and 300 Reagans in Congress, and 70 Reagans in the Senate.

AgentRose| 5.24.11 @ 12:07PM

Well, we don't know if Reagan won the sequel yet. Please see AGENDA: GRINDING AMERICA DOWN ( http://agendadocumentary.com/) and get informed. Start working against the radical agenda. This is MUCH more radical than when Reagan and Ford were feuding. And they are in charge!!!

PCPSmoker| 5.24.11 @ 12:42PM

What I find interesting is how old this particular playbook is. Reading about the 1966 governational race, Reagan was the "simple actor" who was associated with right wing element, while Brown was the moderate who understood the highly complex problems.
The only way to get past the template, as RR showed, is to ignore it.

Stuart Koehl| 5.24.11 @ 2:55PM

The fox knows many things. The hedgehog knows one big thing.

It is definitely better to have a hedgehog than a fox to run things.

Occam's Tool| 5.24.11 @ 3:00PM

Mr. Koehl,

totally agree with you. What we have now is a SpongeBob Squarepants who thinks he's a fox.

Frisbee| 5.24.11 @ 8:24PM

Hey Stuart: Chesterton said "When you tear down the big laws, you don't get nothing. You get the small laws." (from memory)

PCP Smoker| 5.24.11 @ 8:43PM

That analogy was included in one of the best biographies about RR. You are good man for mention it.

voted against carter| 5.24.11 @ 8:13PM

Keep the message simple and easy to understand. EVIL EMPIRE. TEAR DOWN THIS WALL. THERE HE GOES,.. AGAIN,..

Reagan WAS a MASTER politician, there is NO denying that.

To day we MIGHT be witnessing the birth of the NEXT MASTER politician in the Reagan school but that remains to be seen in that she might not run and America will be poorer for it if she does not.

All I can say is Carter / Reagan 1979.

And we ALL know just how THAT worked out thank God.

The Leftwing nut LIBRATARDS know in their bones that Sarah Palin,...

IS Ronald Reagan ALL OVER AGAIN. IT TERRIFIES them to no end.

ESPECIALLY the ones who are OLD enough to remember Reagan.

So they are trying with EVERY thing they have to,...

destroy her in a pre-emptive strike.

If you have heard ANY of her recent speech's, you understand.

Sarah Palin REALLY IS the real deal.

Not some pre-packaged made up configuration like their hero Barry.

The Left senses this and has reacted like expected.

IF she runs against barry in 2012,…

She WILL CRUSH him with indisputable numbers.

Compared to barry she is Exactly what America will NEED to repair

ALL of the damage wrought by the Dumb-O-cRATs and barry and his UNION masters.

This is ONE MORE REASON America NEED's Sarah Palin NOW more than EVER.

And I can NOT stress this enough,...

Sarah Palin IS ONE of the ONLY women IN the REPUBLICAN PARTY,...

With the "B A L L S" to tell Barry and his UNION masters,...

AND the Dumb-O-cRATs to SHOVE their agenda were the sun does NOT SHINE!!.

Dee See| 5.26.11 @ 11:34PM

----BACK!

-------------before the Bush front op

------------------before Reagan

-----------------------before the Nixon/MAO sellout

---------------------------before even Eisenhower

------------------------------even Globalist Hoover

BACK to Coolidge

That's right --------------CALVIN Coolidge.

HUAC meets NUREMBERG 2012 will help
get us there.

weddingdress | 6.29.11 @ 5:43AM

That analogy was included in one of the best biographies about RR. You are good man for mention it.

Latest Headlines

Not Ready for Primetime Players

Daniel J. Flynn|99 comments

Assessing a Week of Scandal

Matt Purple|117 comments

Oops, Maybe Government is Tyrannical

Marta H. Mossburg|59 comments

Soros Funds Anti-‘Torture’ Report

Mark Tooley|104 comments

Treasure State Treasury

Bill Croke|3 comments

My Generation’s Disease

Benjamin Brophy|60 comments

The View From the Other Side

George H. Wittman|16 comments

USPS: Radical Surgery Needed

Peter Hannaford|19 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Elijah Harper, R.I.P.

Aaron Goldstein | 5.18.13

If Only the Tsar Knew!

F.H. Buckley | 5.18.13

Low-Level IRS Staffer: No, We Didn’t Mastermind This Entire Thing

Matt Purple | 5.17.13

UPDATED: IRS Acting Chief Apologizes, But Defends His Actions

Kaylin Bugos | 5.17.13

Voter Fraud Affected Election Results in Missouri