The Ronald Reagan Republican Litmus Test

[Steely Dan]

Under the proposed Republican plan Republicans would have to post 8 out of ten on these principles;

 

1. Smaller government.

2. Oppose Health Care reform

3. Oppose Cap and Trade

4. Oppose card check

5. Oppose amnesty for illegal immigrants

6. Support military recommendations like troop surges.

7. Contain Iran and North Korea.

8. Support defense of marriage act.

9. Oppose healthcare rationing and funds to support abortions.

10. Support gun control.

 

Would he pass?

 

1. Expanded the deficit and taxes - http://www.redding.com/news/2008/feb/28/in...n-raised-taxes/

 

Reagan ended up approving a $1 billion tax increase on a $6 billion annual budget, which was, proportionately, the biggest tax increase in (California) state history.

 

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/...4_12/005340.php

 

The answer, of course, is that Reagan didn't grow his way out of the deficits caused by his 1981 tax cut. As the chart on the right shows (adapted from this Treasury report), he raised taxes twice in 1982, and then raised them again in 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, and 1987. But even with those seven tax increases and several years of strong growth, he still didn't get rid of his deficit.

 

Dick Cheney famously said that "Reagan proved deficits don't matter," and regardless of whether he actually said this or not (he denies it), it represents a fairly hardy piece of folk wisdom.

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/...ain592330.shtml

 

 

So at a meeting with the vice president after the mid-term elections in 2002, Suskind writes that O'Neill argued against a second round of tax cuts.

 

“Cheney, at this moment, shows his hand,” says Suskind. “He says, ‘You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due.’ … O'Neill is speechless.”

 

5. He supported amnesty for illegal immigrants.

6. He ignored the military recommendation to pull out of Beirut.

7. He sold weapons to Iran.

8. He opposed California's anti-gay prop 6 and hosted the first openly gay sleepover at the Whitehouse.

10. He supported gun control legislation in California and supported the Brady Bill.

 

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1786011/posts

 

And nobody was more candid in admitting that he was anything but perfect than my Dad. He knew that like all men, he had his flaws and he spent a lifetime combating them. Had today’s GOP litmus test been seriously applied to him, he could not have passed the test.

 

 

http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=1396

 

By the time Reagan ran for President, he was clearly in the pro-life camp and I have no reason to think that his belief was anything but genuine. However, in the 1960’s as Govenor of California, Ronald Reagan signed what was essentially a pro abortion bill that resulted in at least a million more abortions than before he signed the legislation.

 

________________________________________________________

 

...would today’s fiscal hawks have stuck with Reagan while the deficit jumped to levels never before seen? Also, in spite of Reagan’s clear distain for the federal beauacracy, the overall size of the federal goverment grew during his time in office.

 

_______________________________________________________

 

 

Reagan’s one significant military decision in an actual war was, using today’s parlance, to cut and run in Lebanon after terrorists bombed U.S. military barracks resulting in the deaths of 240 Americans. How would the conservatives view this today? Did we embolden future terrorists by leaving?

 

________________________________________________________

 

Finally, the most important issue to many conservatives, after protecting the rights of the unborn, is their strong opposition to any legislation that even hints at amnesty for illegal aliens. In 1986 Reagan signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act, which provided amnesty to over 1 million illegal aliens.

 

http://www.foxpolitics.net/politics.iml?md...;issue_id=30307

 

It is for this reason that we should heed the words of President Ronald Reagan, who urged, “We should emphasize the things that unite us and make these the only ‘litmus test’ of what constitutes a Republican: our belief in restraining government spending, pro-growth policies, tax reduction, sound national defense, and maximum individual liberty.” He continued, “As to the other issues that draw on the deep springs of morality and emotion, let us decide that we can disagree among ourselves as Republicans and tolerate the disagreement.”

 

http://billingsgazette.com/news/opinion/gu...def421be3d.html

 

We forget sometimes that the GOP was not always like this. Not that long ago, we had pro-choicers like Barry Goldwater. Or Ronald Reagan, Act One. Or George H.W. Bush, who was pro-choice before he was pro-victory. The northeast quadrant of the country was once home turf to pro-choice Republican women from Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger to Barbara Bush. Now we are down to two female Republican senators from Maine who may yet be banned from taking communion with their fellow congressional parishioners.

[Jim in Anchorage]

So whats your question, point, etc?

[Nanker]

So whats your question, point, etc?

He's just showing his research for a very, very important term paper.

Mrs. Gladys, his 7th Grade History teacher says she wants all the class essays in before Christmas recess.

[Bishop Hedd]

He's just showing his research for a very, very important term paper.

Mrs. Gladys, his 7th Grade History teacher says she wants all the class essays in before Christmas recess.

The list was actually on Olbermann last night so little research was required.

 

I'm assuming his point is the republican party has become so rigid in their quest for ideological purity that they've created this loony litmus test. for its members.

[Steely Dan]

So whats your question, point, etc?

 

I can't believe you don't understand the point but I'll tell you. The Republican Party that has always considered Reagan one of it's best Presidents, is using a litmus test with Reagan's name on it to screen Republican candidates. This is silly because Reagan himself couldn't pass the test. Therefore they are trying to put square pegs into round holes because they are so far removed from the Reagan era principles.

 

Why would a party use a false litmus test with Reagan's name on it? Maybe because Reagan was the most beloved Republican President in the 20th century, IMO. They are lying to make the public believe they are still the party of Reagan. It's just further proof of how far the Republicans are effed up.

 

The Republicans have gone from touting fiscal conservatism to touting social conservatism. Reagan wasn't that much interested in social conservatism. Can you imagine what the Republicans would say if Obama let an openly gay couple sleep at the Whitehouse or supported gun control legislation like the Brady Bill?

 

Personally I hope they apply this litmus test to all of their candidates. It will just keep pushing them away from the moderates. If President Obama did any of those things the Republicans would have a hissy fit. I've said before on this board that Reagan would be a Democrat in this political climate and this proves it.

[John Adams]

Reagan is credited with much but not blamed for enough for the death of conservatism. In creating the "big tent," he sold the future of the party into the hands of the religious right (the old Southern Democrats) who now run the party at the expense of the Republicans who want smaller government. That schism is what has fractured the Republican Party-alienating the minority of the right who want small government, personal freedoms, and fiscal responsibility.

 

Reagan didn't fall victim to the issues that now haunt the Party but he's the one who created the monster.

[Steely Dan]

Reagan is credited with much but not blamed for enough for the death of conservatism. In creating the "big tent," he sold the future of the party into the hands of the religious right (the old Southern Democrats) who now run the party at the expense of the Republicans who want smaller government. That schism is what has fractured the Republican Party-alienating the minority of the right who want small government, personal freedoms, and fiscal responsibility.

 

Reagan didn't fall victim to the issues that no haunt the Party but he's the one who created the monster.

 

That's a big part of my point. In order to pass that test you have to be an ultra-conservative and Reagan wasn't an ultra-conservative.

 

In the 2006 election I saw a Georgia woman on TV talking about changing her votes to Democratic candidates. She said that the Republicans were talking about things she didn't care about, like gay marriage bans and such. The tighter they make the fist the more Republicans they are squeezing out. I have no problem with that. Keep going guys.

[UConn James]

Under the proposed Republican plan, Republicans would have to post 8 out of ten on these principles;

 

1. Smaller government.

2. Oppose Health Care reform

3. Oppose Cap and Trade

4. Oppose card check

5. Oppose amnesty for illegal immigrants

6. Support military recommendations like troop surges.

7. Contain Iran and North Korea.

8. Support defense of marriage act.

9. Oppose healthcare rationing and funds to support abortions.

10. Support gun control.

 

:wallbash:

[3rdnlng]

I can't believe you don't understand the point but I'll tell you. The Republican Party that has always considered Reagan one of it's best Presidents, is using a litmus test with Reagan's name on it to screen Republican candidates. This is silly because Reagan himself couldn't pass the test. Therefore they are trying to put square pegs into round holes because they are so far removed from the Reagan era principles.

 

Why would a party use a false litmus test with Reagan's name on it? Maybe because Reagan was the most beloved Republican President in the 20th century, IMO. They are lying to make the public believe they are still the party of Reagan. It's just further proof of how far the Republicans are effed up.

 

The Republicans have gone from touting fiscal conservatism to touting social conservatism. Reagan wasn't that much interested in social conservatism. Can you imagine what the Republicans would say if Obama let an openly gay couple sleep at the Whitehouse or supported gun control legislation like the Brady Bill?

 

Personally I hope they apply this litmus test to all of their candidates. It will just keep pushing them away from the moderates. If President Obama did any of those things the Republicans would have a hissy fit. I've said before on this board that Reagan would be a Democrat in this political climate and this proves it.

 

 

And JFK, the revered icon of the democrats would be a conservative today. Today's democrats are nothing like the democrats of yesterday. They, for the most part are left wing socialists with very little sense of history as it relates to country.

[John Adams]

That's a big part of my point. In order to pass that test you have to be an ultra-conservative and Reagan wasn't an ultra-conservative.

 

In the 2006 election I saw a Georgia woman on TV talking about changing her votes to Democratic candidates. She said that the Republicans were talking about things she didn't care about, like gay marriage bans and such. The tighter they make the fist the more Republicans they are squeezing out. I have no problem with that. Keep going guys.

 

Whatever point you attempted to make was obfuscated by your ponderous post. Another choke for Steely Dan.

[KD in CA]

So whats your question, point, etc?

 

That he has mastered the art of cut-and-paste.

[Alaska Darin]

I've said before on this board that Reagan would be a Democrat in this political climate and this proves it.

[Bishop Hedd]

Reagan is credited with much but not blamed for enough for the death of conservatism. In creating the "big tent," he sold the future of the party into the hands of the religious right (the old Southern Democrats) who now run the party at the expense of the Republicans who want smaller government. That schism is what has fractured the Republican Party-alienating the minority of the right who want small government, personal freedoms, and fiscal responsibility.

 

Reagan didn't fall victim to the issues that no haunt the Party but he's the one who created the monster.

Reagan may have played wink wink nudge nudge lip service to the social conservatives but as far as enacting any legislation to further their causes..well...that's debatable.

[John Adams]

Reagan may have played wink wink nudge nudge lip service to the social conservatives but as far as enacting any legislation to further their causes..well...that's debatable.

 

Like I said, "Reagan didn't fall victim to the issues that now haunt the Party."

 

Of course, he had his own version of fiscal irresponsibility driving up the deficit aggressively.

[Magox]

Like I said, "Reagan didn't fall victim to the issues that now haunt the Party."

 

Of course, he had his own version of fiscal irresponsibility driving up the deficit aggressively.

We have to understand from where these deficits came from.

 

Much of the deficit spending came from military buildup that was necessary considering the 'Cold War'. Once the 'Cold War' ended, which Reagan is part of why that had happened, the administrations that followed were able to reduce defense spending.

 

Also, we have to understand the long term affects of his tax cuts, that in the short term added to the deficit, but when it was all said and done, ended up being a long term boon for our economy.

 

Let's not forget that we went through the worst inflationary mess we had seen in modern day history when he came to office. Not only was inflation through the roof, unemployment was extremely high.

 

Under his tenure, we created 10 million jobs, not "saved and created" but just created. He was an instrumental figure in ending the 'cold war' which therefore led to reduced defense spending.

 

Also the tax cuts that I mentioned undoubtedly layed the seeds of future growth.

 

So, yes, tangibly speaking the deficits rose, but on the other hand his policies killed off inflation that he inherited from Carter, created 10 million jobs and his policies led us to a sustained growth trajectory.

[DC Tom]

The list was actually on Olbermann last night so little research was required.

 

And the list didn't require much either.

 

 

That litmus test is BS, though. Maybe 15% of the country supports eight out of ten of those points?

[John Adams]

We have to understand from where these deficits came from.

 

Much of the deficit spending came from military buildup that was necessary considering the 'Cold War'. Once the 'Cold War' ended, which Reagan is part of why that had happened, the administrations that followed were able to reduce defense spending.

 

Also, we have to understand the long term affects of his tax cuts, that in the short term added to the deficit, but when it was all said and done, ended up being a long term boon for our economy.

 

Let's not forget that we went through the worst inflationary mess we had seen in modern day history when he came to office. Not only was inflation through the roof, unemployment was extremely high.

 

Under his tenure, we created 10 million jobs, not "saved and created" but just created. He was an instrumental figure in ending the 'cold war' which therefore led to reduced defense spending.

 

Also the tax cuts that I mentioned undoubtedly layed the seeds of future growth.

 

So, yes, tangibly speaking the deficits rose, but on the other hand his policies killed off inflation that he inherited from Carter, created 10 million jobs and his policies led us to a sustained growth trajectory.

 

Outspending the means incoming is not a good precedent except in national emergency/war.

 

Here in the USA, there is far too much credit given to Reagan for ending the Cold War. It happened on his watch. He played his role--and he deserves credit for hard rhetoric. The truth is the Iron Curtain was dying from a thousands knife wounds when Reagan came on board. He was holding the knife that delivered the death blow.

 

Note: I did not mean to turn this into a Reagan-bashing thread. What I am saying is that in order to create the coalition that got him elected, he formed the Big Tent. That gathered true Libertarian-style conservatives into the same party as many traditional Southern Democrats. For a brief window of his impressive leadership, that Big Tent enacted quite a few Libertarian-style initiatives.

 

But in his wake, he left a Big Tent with warring factions. Many of the Christian Righters don't give a rat's ass about fiscal responsibility. And the Libertarians are discontent with the Christian Right's desire to subjugate personal freedoms. That's the current Republican crossroads--and why even though Obama is a cluster!@#$ mess of a president, he could win in 2012 if the Republicans continue to try to work from Reagan's Big Tent party idea.

[Magox]

But in his wake, he left a Big Tent with warring factions. Many of the Christian Righters don't give a rat's ass about fiscal responsibility. And the Libertarians are discontent with the Christian Right's desire to subjugate personal freedoms. That's the current Republican crossroads--and why even though Obama is a cluster!@#$ mess of a president, he could win in 2012 if the Republicans continue to try to work from Reagan's Big Tent party idea.

Right now, I don't see enough unity in the Republican party to win 2012. The biggest factor they have on their side is Obama and his radical agenda of wealth distribution, anti business, big government and lack of overall leadership. If a strong contender can come out of the primaries and the Republicans can unify under that person that isn't too divisive to attract the Independents, I think there is a decent shot that they can take the presidency. However, I just don't see who fits the bill to be able to do that.

[John Adams]

Right now, I don't see enough unity in the Republican party to win 2012. The biggest factor they have on their side is Obama and his radical agenda of wealth distribution, anti business, big government and lack of overall leadership. If a strong contender can come out of the primaries and the Republicans can unify under that person that isn't too divisive to attract the Independents, I think there is a decent shot that they can take the presidency. However, I just don't see who fits the bill to be able to do that.

 

What I don't see is a true fiscal small government conservative of any influence, period. Someone in that flavor might spark a movement. But if the Republicans just put up another McCain or worse, a Huckabee, or even worse, Palin...they will lose because people like me won't vote for them.

 

Projecting a crystal ball, I suspect that some strongish third party fiscal conservative candidate will emerge (someone like a Forbes or Bloomberg--not them but someone in that vein) but that person will fracture the right and Obama won't garner a ton of votes but he'll get enough to beat the split right.

 

And I don't think anyone underestimates Obama's ability to campaign well. But he'll never get the Independent vote that he got last time.

 

To think: I sit here wishing Hillary had won. She would be a MUCH better president than Obama.

[Taro T]

What I don't see is a true fiscal small government conservative of any influence, period. Someone in that flavor might spark a movement. But if the Republicans just put up another McCain or worse, a Huckabee, or even worse, Palin...they will lose because people like me won't vote for them.

 

Projecting a crystal ball, I suspect that some strongish third party fiscal conservative candidate will emerge (someone like a Forbes or Bloomberg--not them but someone in that vein) but that person will fracture the right and Obama won't garner a ton of votes but he'll get enough to beat the split right.

 

And I don't think anyone underestimates Obama's ability to campaign well. But he'll never get the Independent vote that he got last time.

 

To think: I sit here wishing Hillary had won. She would be a MUCH better president than Obama.

Right now I am expecting to see a 3 way race between a Gingrich type, a 3rd party fiscal conservative, and the incumbent. And my expectations of who wins that race, could be 1, but probably will be 3. Which stinks, because we desperately need a fiscal conservative running the ship.

 

I am still hoping, but not expecting, something will happen in the next 3 years to have the Republicans run a true fiscal conservative (which I don't see any way of happening) or somehow the 3rd party candidate actually becomes viable.