February 21, 2007
REAGAN'S WAS BIG, W'S IS STRONG:
Bush has undermined Reagan's conservative movement (Joe Scarborough, 2/21/07, JewishWorldReview.com)
[I] expected no flowers from the White House this Valentine's Day because I have angered more than my share of Republican apologists for suggesting Bush has done more to damage the conservative movement than Newt Gingrich could ever have managed. In fact, Bush's Big Government Republicanism has so undermined Ronald Reagan's conservative movement, Gingrich is the only champion of conservative causes still occupying the national stage.But don't try to tell that to the same suck-ups who blasted me during the Newt wars. They will tell you that conservatives should look away when Republicans set records for federal spending, national deficits and spiraling debts. They will tell you that even though we criticized Bill Clinton for ignoring his generals' advice, we should give George W. Bush a free pass for doing the same thing 10 years later. And if we are truly loyal party members, we should attack those generals as defeatists.
Well, it's all too much for me. I thank G-d for conservatives like Largent, Coburn and those who entered Congress in 1994. I thank G-d for Ronald Reagan's daring to take on a bloated party establishment in 1976. How funny that Reagan saved the same party that despised him for taking on a sitting president.
Party types called Reagan a traitor in 1976 for daring to buck the political establishment. But the way I see it, the Gipper showed loyalty by telling the truth and making his party better. Four years later, the Reagan Revolution was lodged because of his courage.
We need more Reagans today.
Unfortunately, there are plenty of Reaganite defenders of the New Deal in Congress, which is why George Bush is nearly alone in trying to reform SS along conservative lines. Sadly, too few conservatives are Reaganite on immigration amnesty, so it will be george Bush and Democrats who do the reforming there. And, of course, it's a smaller war, so it costs less, but pretty much everyone in Washington is more fiscally conservative than the Gipper was.
Meanwhile, the most conspicuous thing about Mr. Scarborough and his band of brothers is that nearly all made a hash of their own political careers. Now, like drunk fans in the cheap seats, they heckle the guys who are still in the ring....
So you're saying that this article is the political equivalent of, "How did he drop that? Even I could have caught that ball!"
Posted by: Brandon at February 21, 2007 10:55 AMTo call Simpson-Mazzoli "Reaganite" is to engage in the sort of revisionism the Left has perfected. I don't know which is scarier, that you actually believe it, or you think imitation of that tactic of the Left is good politics.
What an unpleasant guy Scarborough is. No wonder he is out of politics.
Like OJ says, Reagan was a great man but he raised taxes and signed an immigation amnesty. He was saved from his errors in Iran Contra due to Ollie North showing up in uniform at the hearings and the Congress screwing up the immunity.
Scarborough forgets all this.
As for the the 1994 class, they came in with such promise and they nearly all screwed up in one way or another.
Ah, Raoul with the old "Reagan was too stupid to know what he was doing" argument....
Posted by: oj at February 21, 2007 2:33 PM" set records for federal spending, national deficits and spiraling debts" Bush also set records for GDP growth. Federal spending is below average as percentage of GDP, deficit is about half of the norm since 1970's, debt is 64% of GDP, right in the range.
For a person of moderate means, $100,000 is a lot; for the super rich, $100,000 is a pittance, unless the super rich is also a Scrooge. Some so-called conservatives are stuck-on stupid Scrooges living in the last century.
Jiminy Christmas, I get tired of this. Any individual who thinks that all conservatives realized what a good thing they had in Ronald Reagan while he was actually president is invited to head to a nearby college library and read what the conservative press was saying about him during his presidency. The results will be instructive.
Wilfred McClay is one of the few commentators who has managed to maintain perspective regarding this subject.
There is nothing in Reagan's presidency that requires conservatives to approve of any specific policy measure of the Bush administration -- I'm all for honest criticism -- but at least let's not compare the real world to some imagined past era of total conservative consensus. Comparing reality to some utopian fantasy is for the Left, not for us.
Posted by: Matt Murphy at February 21, 2007 5:14 PMHere, just for the sake of perspective, is a passage from Robert Novak's 1987 introduction to a reprint of Witness by Whittaker Chambers. Mr. Novak notes that President Reagan posthumously awarded Whittaker Chambers the Presidential Medal of Freedom in a 1984 ceremony. Then he forecasts the future (italics added for amusement purposes):
[T]hat White House ceremony for Chambers marked the apogee of Reaganism. Since then, the Reagan Administration has lurched toward detente and faltered under inexorable pressure to conciliate rather than confront. The prospect is that President Reagan will be leaving office with his doctrine for assisting counter-revolutionaries worldwide in tatters and the initiative in the hands of the Kremlin.Posted by: Matt Murphy at February 21, 2007 5:57 PM
That's classic Matt.
Come the revolution that last bit about the Kremlin will be tattooed on Novak's forehead to remind everyone what a fool he is.
Posted by: Jim in Chicago at February 21, 2007 9:27 PMNovak has embarrassed himself quite enough and it's past time now that he retires and rests on his laurels.
Posted by: erp at February 22, 2007 8:23 AM