Posts Tagged ‘Ronald Reagan’

Rove’s Record With “the Most Conservative Candidate Who Could Win”

Friday, February 8th, 2013

Who Me?

On Friday, Karl Rove was further exposed as misleading and disingenuous.  In an email response to his appearance on Thursday’s O’Reilly Factor, in which Rove claimed to have been the Director of Reagan’s 1980 Campaign in Texas, Reagan Biographer Craig Shirley responded via Daily Caller, explaining that Rove was no such thing.  In point of fact, Karl Rove ran Governor Clements’ effort for Reagan, but only after George W. Bush was defeated in the primary.  Do you understand?  Rove was a George H.W. Bush supporter, as was Texas Governor Bill Clements, for whom Rove worked at the time.  You see, Clements was a strong Bush supporter throughout the primaries, but there’s more to consider in this story.  First, watch Rove plead his case on Bill O’Reilly’s softball show:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UPO8MIvNuE]

You might wonder, watching Rove misrepresent his role in the Texas campaign for Ronald Reagan, whether it’s such a big deal that he first supported George H.W. Bush.  After all, it’s not that unusual for a candidate’s supporters to move over to the nominee’s campaign in some role after the primaries.  That said, there’s something very important I want you to consider, and it’s obvious as the spin flowing from Karl Rove’s lips:

In 1980, Rove chose Bush. Consider his dubious argument about supporting “the most conservative candidate who can win.”  It seems the most conservative candidate did win, but it wasn’t Rove’s choice in the primary in 1980.  Instead, Ronald Reagan won, and he was far more conservative than Rove’s choice. Of course, that’s not all you need to know.  In 1976, Ronald Reagan was fighting with Gerald Ford for the GOP nomination, and Karl Rove chose a horse to ride in that race too.  Ronald Reagan?  No, ladies and gentlemen,  Karl Rove was all aboard for Gerald Ford.  Gerald Ford lost to Jimmy Carter, and so it was true that once again, Rove apparently picked “the most conservative candidate who could win,” though neither did.

That’s the truth about Karl Rove.  In 1978, Karl Rove ran the losing George W. Bush campaign for congress. In 2000, his candidate nearly lost, and did lose the popular vote.  In 2004, his candidate barely squeaked by a very weak John Kerry.  In 2006, his strategies lost the House and Senate.  In 2012, he backed Romney early and often, and Mitt Romney lost. Karl Rove’s record of picking winners is abysmal. He clearly doesn’t know a conservative from a turnip, never mind a winner.  You must stop falling for his strategies, and as Mark Levin pointed out on Friday evening, Rove is attacking Steve King(R-IA) incessantly and dishonestly.  I repeat my sentiment to those who hope to reclaim leadership in the GOP: If you want any hope of winning, Karl Rove must go.

 

Jeffrey Lord: Elliott Abrams Lied About Newt Gingrich

Friday, January 27th, 2012

Jeffrey Lord

In what can only be called a stunning, face-slapping rebuttal, Jeffrey Lord has discovered that Elliott Abrams’ story about Gingrich’s alleged criticism of President Reagan were not only erroneously characterized, but almost certainly indicates it was an intentional hit-piece by Abrams, that Abrams must have known was dishonest.  It points out the problem going on with much of Romney’s campaign of destruction aimed at Gingrich, and it points out how thoroughly damaging such a thing can be when amplified almost infinitely by the roaring link-fest of the Drudge Report.  Abrams’ hit-piece stayed up on Drudge for more than twenty-four hours, and there will be no rebuttal.  The only way the truth will be distributed at this point is for you, the public, to undertake this chore.

Lord used the more charitable word “misleading” to describe Abrams’ piece, but to me, once one has read Lord’s piece, there can be no way to conclude that Abrams had been anything but intentionally dishonest.  At that point, the question of motive is brought sharply into focus, and it is clear that Abrams is part of the establishment wing of the GOP out to destroy Gingrich in order to shove Mitt Romney down our throats.  Ladies and gentlemen, this is no longer an issue of electability. This is an issue of integrity, and whether you like Gingrich or hate him, if you claim to be a conservative Republican, you must not tolerate this from the party.  If the party machine  is permitted this scandalous behavior, there is no point to the party, and you must come to recognize that this has been the root of the smears of all the other conservative candidates too.

What this demonstrates all too clearly is what many conservatives have long suspected: The establishment is intent upon shoving Romney down our throats, and any foolish enough to fall for that deserve the just results.

Reagan Honored in Former Soviet Bloc Countries While Defaced in US

Friday, November 25th, 2011

In Tbilisi, Georgia

Twice in the last week, nations that had once been slaves of the Soviet Union honored Ronald Reagan with statues.  As a statue of Reagan was being defaced in our own capital, first in Hungary, more recently in Poland, and now in Georgia, “the Gipper” is still remembered as the man whose vigilance and willingness to call evil by its name caused the Soviet Union to wither and die of its own grotesque weight.  He’s cited as the man whose firm stance against the “evil empire” brought the USSR to its end, and with it, the nearly half-century long Cold War.  How stunning it is that while his statue isn’t safe in this country even in his home state, across the region of Europe that had once lived under the tyrannical iron fist of the Soviet Union, he’s afforded more honor and reverence than he receives in some quarters here at home.  None can convince me that this irony isn’t symbolic of the disease that afflicts our nation.  When a man whose efforts liberated millions and whose policies lifted a nation to the pinnacle of its success at home and abroad cannot find respect he deserves at home, it’s time to question the culture that permits such an absurdity to endure.

Most Americans remember Reagan fondly, even some of his opponents at the time.  He was an optimistic leader who thought that the efforts of the people, and their simple values ought to prevail upon their leaders to provide the liberty that has been America’s great promise.  His memory is truly cherished among the great body of the American people, but to doctrinaire leftists, both his political success and his philosophical foundations are occasions for disdain and discontent.  The left simply hates Ronald Reagan.  The simple truth is that he offered a thorough refutation of leftist ideology.  He didn’t need a ten-dollar vocabulary, and it didn’t matter to the American people that he was in his seventies throughout his presidency.  He told it like it was, and still is today.

I find comfort in the fact that while freedom is withering in the US at the hands of Reagan’s opponents, in the eyes of a majority of the American people, he’s still supremely popular.  As his detractors hurl insults at him, in Eastern Europe, leaders whose nations were freed by his efforts are remembering him with statues, and saying plainly what the left has spent two decades trying to pretend hadn’t been so:  Ronald Reagan defeated the Soviet Union.  Others deserve some credit, but theirs were ancillary roles.  Only Margaret Thatcher and Pope John Paul II deserve any mention among western leaders along with Reagan. Let’s consider what others have said recently.  From Tbilisi, Georgia:

In Tbilisi

Georgia’s pro-Western president has unveiled a monument to Ronald Reagan in the capital of the ex-Soviet state praising the 40th U.S. president for “destroying the Soviet Empire.”

Mikhail Saakashvili, whose government has for years had tense relations with Russia, also lambasted Moscow’s attempts to “restore” the Soviet Union by creating an economic bloc with other ex-Soviet nations.

He said Wednesday that the bronze statue that depicts Reagan sitting on a bench “deserves a place in the heart of Tbilisi, the heart of Georgia.”

In Warsaw, Poland, Lech Walesa:

In Warsaw

“Let us bow before Ronald Reagan for the fact that our generation was able to bring an end to the great divisions and conflicts of the world,” Mr Walesa said in a ceremony in the heart of the Polish capital Warsaw.

“What happened seemed impossible or unthinkable. The older generations still remember,” the Nobel Peace laureate said.

“In Poland, we had more than 200,000 Soviet soldiers. Across Europe, there were more than a million, as well as nuclear weapons. Major changes without a nuclear conflict seemed unlikely,” he added.

In Budapest, Hungary:

In Budapest

Prime Minister Viktor Orban and former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice helped unveil the statue Wednesday.

Reagan was remembered for the aid and encouragement he gave Hungary and other former Soviet satellite states in Eastern Europe to gain back their freedom.

Reagan “changed the world and created a new world for Central Europe,” Orban said at the unveiling ceremony. “He tore down the walls which were erected in the path of freedom in the name of distorted and sick ideologies.”

 

In Newport Beach, CA

This is simply astonishing.  While the people who had lived under the oppressive Soviet boot understand and remember what they have gained, too many in this country have spent the intervening years lying about the nature of the Soviet Union and the philosophy on which it had been based, and little is taught in our schools that would explain the importance that an honest retelling of history demands.  Look at the “Occupiers,”  our modern day iteration of the Bolsheviks.  Their historical understanding is so frightfully narrow, and their philosophical underpinnings so atrociously bankrupt, they believe, with the crude indolence of club-wielding children that the are some sort of “freedom-fighters” while they agitate on behalf of ideas refuted before many of their births.  They tell themselves they aren’t anti-capitalists, as if some sort of self-delusion will prohibit to the rest of us the view of what they’re really preaching.

I don’t think they have any idea what it is for which they now agitate, and as history repeats as the Occu-pests cry out for the United Soviet States of America, I cannot imagine a more fitting spectacle than to see that while these misguided brats rant about the inequities of the markets, they nevertheless don’t realize that what they’re demanding will only make things infinitely worse.  Perhaps it is better that statues of Ronald Reagan are erected and unveiled in Eastern Europe, because at least there, it seems the people will have some reason to remember the reasons for which his memory is honored.  These Occupiers don’t have a clue, but thankfully we have conservatives and the Tea Party who can yet teach them.