teedubbya wrote: I know you don't believe it but if his ghost ran today in another body with another name he could never win the nomination. He wouldn't pass the right litmus tests. Then folks say he would be considered a rino they are not talking about going backwards and labeling him. They are talking about if he ran now. Teddy you wouldn't vote for him.
One of the silliest quotes I have seen here. Reagan would mop up and I would campaign and vote for him every day of the week.
He wouldn't win as a Governor in CA however, because that state is so far gone now.
Bizzaro world is holding up Christie or Kasich as "Reaganesque" when those two are about the furthest from him. You need to go back to school. Cruz is the closest thing we have to a Reagan in this go round and it is sad you don't see it.
teedubbya wrote: McCain (also no Reagan) would have been better than Obammy. He chose Palin out of desperation to pacify the extremists and it failed. Palin is an entertainer who had a brief stint as a partial term governor. Keep track of who thought she was a darling of the party and you will find the folks largely responsible for national losses. She and those like her are not the winning solution.
responsible for national losses? Did you not see the landslides in favor of republicans? And this was not because of the Rove candidates (read establishment republicans). Many many of these candidates ran as conservatives and won. So I don't get your "national losses" argument, when the opposite is true.
Reagan would not horse trade with a socialistic minded party like the democrats are now. He would explain his case and again force the democrats to move right. I have never said ''no compromise ever." But if compromising, means always the republicans moving further left, then hell yeah, I am for no compromise ever in a situation like that. Why go further left toward socialism?
We are not Europe.