One of the most beaten-to-death cliches right now is the tiresome tendency to declare anyone on our side with any potential whatsoever “The Next Reagan.”
Reagan’s overwhelming victory was a culmination of many complex tendencies in the electorate, several of which we probably have not identified — and probably never will. Of course, the most important of those are identifiable: a rejection of decades of moderate-to-liberal rule, loathing toward Jimmy Carter’s failures, Reagan’s “three-legged stool” conservatism, and his inclusive, big-tent rhetoric. The way that people tend to single out contemporary politicians as “New Reagans” is by singling out a particular quality shared with Reagan and declaring it The Ultimate one. Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, Marco Rubio — gosh, we’re at no shortage of Reagans, are we?
First of all, let’s remember what Reagan really was, flaws and all. We rightly remember his brilliant anti-detente, anti-appeasement policy toward Communism that helped to bring down the Soviet Union. For that, he is one of history’s true heroes. He slashed tax rates in an unprecedented manner, and for that, we owe him much. He was a charismatic man with a show business career behind him who, as governor, happened to have supported abortion rights, raised taxes, and would go on, as president, to cave into pressure withdraw from Lebanon after a couple of shots were fired and grant amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants. He also blew up the deficit to very ugly levels. He sold weapons to the mullahs of Iran. We tend to forget these things in this new age of hagiography. Could Ronald Reagan have even won a Republican primary in 2009?
Most of all, we like to compare people to Reagan, though, because Reagan knew how to win. But there was another politician who was remarkably Reaganesque who didn’t do a very good job of that. We — rightly, I believe — revere his name, but my goodness, was he a spectacular flop. That politician, of course, was Barry Goldwater, and these “new Reagans” — especially Sarah Palin — could very well end up like him, should they be nominated. The obvious highlight from the Goldwater campaignwas the bombastic, brilliant, and highly divisive “extremism in the defense of liberty” speech, which sent George Romney and fellow liberal Republicans literally scrambling to leave the floor of the Republican National Convention. Reagan conservatism does not a Reagan make.
Goldwater was no worse than Reagan, ideologically, but he fell victim to the circumstance of his time: Phyllis Schlafly and her ilk — the Glenn Beck of that era, I would venture — for better or for worse, had their way with the nomination and ended up crashing and burning. Johnson probably was assured a win thanks to Kennedy’s assassination, but there was absolutely no excuse to win only five states. Goldwater also voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 on property rights grounds and helped us to lose the black vote, previously ‘gettable,’ forever. (Moves like that make one consider Edmund Burke’s maxim that principle should inform, not dictate, action, no?)
The purpose of this post, then, is really just a reminder: when we are ready to anoint someone ‘the next Reagan,’ let’s pause and ask ourselves: what makes a Reagan, anyway?
PS — If anyone, I think that Paul Ryan is the next Reagan figure.
November 1st, 2009 at 9:23 pm
Great post. I especially like the Palin-Goldwater parallel.
November 1st, 2009 at 9:31 pm
Goldwater was actually a very popular figure, nationally, prior to running for President. He was drawing Palin-esque crowds in 60 and 61 and getting John McCain (circa 2000) press coverage. I think it’s a mistake for Republicans to continually point to Goldwater as an example of conservatism that failed. Goldwater failed, not conservatism, for reasons almost totally external to conservatism. He ran a horrendous campaign and never really went all the way in- he had Fred Thompson reluctance the whole way through. And those are only the start of his failures.
November 1st, 2009 at 9:33 pm
You mentioned Reagan, so this is the best place for me to better post this off-topic comment:
November 1st, 2009 at 9:41 pm
#2:
I agree that is was more the circumstances surrounding the 64 election than conservatism that doomed Goldwater. Against JFK, Goldwater probably could have done much better. He could have taken most of the South and the Rock Mountain states, even parts of the Midwest. Against LBJ, the Texan who just happened to be the heir to the martyred President, he really had no chance. Goldwater did fail to reach out to moderates and keep people like Romney, Scranton, Lodge, and Rockefeller on board. He also picked a rather bad running mate (Bill Miller? Really Barry?). Goldwater should have picked someone like Scranton, Morton or if he wanted a fellow conservative, Walter Judd or Everett Dirksen. If he had run a better campaign, Goldwater would still have probably lost, but he would have done much better.
November 1st, 2009 at 9:41 pm
On topic:
That’s an extreme minimization by contemporary standards. Hell, even by modern standards, blowing up nearly 300 Americans who weren’t even given a fight is something more than “a couple of shots.”
There was no way for us to win in what was a Lebanese civil war. So what was the purpose for our continued presence there?
And please don’t say, “Because it taught bin Laden we would run away.” That’s just superficial nonsense. If you pay attention to the bin Laden/Islamist rhetoric and try to adapt policies in response, you’ll constantly be trying to out-tough a bunch of verbal bluster, with no hope for success.
After all, they’re the ones on the run and in hiding. We don’t have to contradict their every claim with our own actions, all expenses be damned.
November 1st, 2009 at 9:45 pm
Sadly, against these fanatics — especially by standards circa 1980 — 300 people is often the equivalent to just a couple of shots.
And the importance of the projection of power is important beyond comprehension. It’s not superficial when it makes America look capricious and weak before its enemies.
November 1st, 2009 at 10:01 pm
I like Ryan a lot, but he isn’t the next ANYTHING until he becomes a Senator or Governor. He needs to run for the Senate next year. When could the timing be better? It’s shaping up to be a Republican year; Wisconsin is a winnable state; the incumbent’s favorables aren’t all that hot; Why on earth not??
November 1st, 2009 at 10:06 pm
Alex:
For the Record, what made George Romney a moderate Republican (Liberal Republican hasn’t been used since 1998) was the equal rights issues. Romney believed in equal rights for all citizens and wanted it part of the 1964 Republican platform but it didn’t happen, that is why he walked out of the convention, and that was why he was considered a moderate.
November 1st, 2009 at 10:11 pm
alex, lets not forget reagan appointed two left of center SCOTUS justices and could care less about campaigning for the GOP after leaving office.
November 1st, 2009 at 10:18 pm
“alex, lets not forget reagan appointed two left of center SCOTUS justices and could care less about campaigning for the GOP after leaving office.”
Where to start? O’Connor and Kennedy are NOT left-of-center, by any understanding of SCOTUS jurisprudence.
And Reagan was an old man when he left office, afflicted with Alzheimer’s give him a break. He did give a great speech GHWB’s behalf at the 1992 convention. Your dig at him strikes me as mean and low.
November 1st, 2009 at 10:41 pm
Reagan was considered Conservative for his time.
It would be very hard for Reagan to get elected as a Conservative today.He believed in God but didn’t belong to an organized Religion, yet the Evangelicals loved him and he got their vote. He did have remorse over the abortion law he signed as over one million abortions were performed in CA, but he was remorseful because the law was being used in a way it wasn’t intended. He set a precedent for illegal immigration and open borders, he closed mental health hospitals here in CA which caused many people to become homeless… He was a fiscal Conservative, after his budget cuts CA was always in good shape…. If he ran for President today he would be considered a Moderate Republican.
November 1st, 2009 at 10:42 pm
http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2009/11/hoffman-leads-big.html
Hoffman 51%
Owens 34%
Scozzafava 13%
Hoffman 54%
Owens 38%
November 1st, 2009 at 10:43 pm
Victor Davis Hanson addressed this issue last year during the primary season. From the “Use and Abuse of Reagan”…
[They have forgotten that Reagan - facing spiraling deficits, sinking poll ratings and a hostile Congress - reluctantly signed legislation raising payroll, income and gasoline taxes, some of them among the largest in our history. He promised to limit government and eliminate the Departments of Education and Energy. Instead, when faced with congressional and popular opposition, he relented and even grew government by adding a secretary of veteran affairs to the Cabinet.
Two of his Supreme Court appointments, Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy, were far more liberal than George W. Bush's selections, the diehard constructionists, John Roberts and Samuel Alito.
Reagan's 1986 comprehensive immigration bill turned out to be the most liberal amnesty for illegal aliens in our nation's history, and set the stage for the present problem of 12 million aliens here unlawfully.
Republicans forget all this - but so do Democrats, who for their own reasons want to perpetuate an unflattering myth of Ronald Reagan as an extremist right-wing reactionary.
In foreign affairs, Reagan was not always sober and judicious. He shocked Cold Warriors by advocating complete nuclear disarmament at his Reykjavik summit with Michel Gorbachev.
In the middle of Lebanon's civil war, he first put American troops into a crossfire. Then, when 241 marines were blown up, he withdrew them. That about-face, and the failure to retaliate in serious fashion, helped to embolden Hezbollah's anti-American terrorism for decades.]
November 1st, 2009 at 10:44 pm
Link re: 13. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/01/the_use_and_abuse_of_reagan.html
November 1st, 2009 at 11:09 pm
Reagan was much more of a Conservative as President than he was as Governor, but the definition of Conservative has changed since Reagan.
Reagan is who we needed for that time. After Carter, Americans were pretty beaten down, like we are now. Reagan gave Americans confidence not just with what he said, but by his actions.
I think our next President or nominee has to send a positive message that gives Americans the confidence in knowing that things will get better… Reagan had that ability.
November 1st, 2009 at 11:14 pm
Christie is up big according to PPP….
http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2009/11/christie-leads.html
November 1st, 2009 at 11:23 pm
Christie 47%
Corzine 41%
Daggett 11%
November 1st, 2009 at 11:32 pm
So, could the Republicans may go 3 for 3?
BTW, there is another special election in California in a very strong Democratic district (CA-10, which Obama won by 32%). The Rebulican in this race (David Harmer) claims to be down only by 7% as of September. If Obama loses this one too, the Dems will freak!
November 1st, 2009 at 11:33 pm
Things are looking up for Christie (PPP)..
“Christie leads Corzine 52-29 with indies, as Daggett’s support with that group has declined to 16%. Christie is getting 82% of Republicans to Corzine’s 72% of Democrats.
As the campaign concludes it seems like Daggett’s presence in the race has actually ended up hurting Corzine more than Christie, contrary to the earlier conventional wisdom. 45% of Daggett voters say the incumbent is their second choice to 36% for the challenger. Daggett’s backers report having voted for Barack Obama by a 67-23 margin last year.”
November 1st, 2009 at 11:51 pm
PPP(D) is off in NJ in my opinion.
November 1st, 2009 at 11:52 pm
Siena has another NY-23 poll out tomorrow.
November 2nd, 2009 at 12:11 am
There will never be another Ronald Reagan. Paul Ryan isn’t it and we aren’t likely to ever find a man exactly like Reagan again. There will be other great Presidents but none that replicates exactly who he was.
Reagan was certainly a Conservative and we can find men or women who could mirror those policies and run on a platform like his but ultimately they wouldn’t be another Reagan.
To me Reagan’s greatest strength wasn’t his cutting taxes or being fiscally frugal, it wasn’t his ‘peace through strength’ approach to foreign policy, or any of those positions on issues that potential Presidents could adopt. What made Reagan great was Reagan himself.
Reagan was always optimistic and he fervently believed in America and the American people. He believed this land was a unique place touched by God. When he called it the “last best hope”, one sensed those words weren’t just hype dreamed up by his communications staff but that was the man himself speaking from his heart. At his first inaugural he said “…It does require, however, our best effort, and our willingness to believe in ourselves and to believe in our capacity to perform great deeds; to believe that together, with God’s help, we can and will resolve the problems which now confront us. And, after all, why shouldn’t we believe that? We are Americans.” He told Americans they were special and their land was an exceptional place. He told them they could achieve anything and he made them believe it. When he became President, the American flag literally came off the shelf and began to fly in front of homes again. Reagan lifted the collective spirit of a Nation.
There was also an inherent goodness to the man. He was decent and trustworthy as witnessed by the fact that even his opponents liked him. He famously sparred with Democrat Speaker of the House, Tip O’Neil during the day but they were friendly and enjoyed each other’s company when the work day was done. Reagan also was a bit of a jokester who always relished humor and Irish wit. Even near death, he quipped to doctors that he hoped they were Republicans.
And, I think he was a bit of a showman tailor-made to be President. He had a reverence for the Presidency and a respect for the office that not all of our Presidents have had. Reagan wouldn’t enter the Oval Office without proper attire out of respect for the office. Unlike W, who suspended the practice, Reagan appreciated the playing of ‘Hail to the Chief’ when he entered a room. Reagan moved the inauguration location from the east side to the west so he could look across the mall to the Lincoln Memorial, Arlington, and to the Nation that unfolded before him. Reagan planned his own funeral at sunset for the symbolism he knew it would provide.
There are many examples but to me, it was those personal qualities that made Reagan great and to a nation whose innocence had been shattered on November 22, 1963, whose generations had been painfully divided by the Vietnam war, whose trust in government had been crushed by Watergate, whose optimism had been replaced by Carter’s malaise, Ronald Reagan’s sunny personality, goodness, wit, and style was a breath of fresh air.
Anybody could adopt his policies but nobody can re-create the unique man that was our 40th President.
November 2nd, 2009 at 1:15 am
Yet another Reagan! Lol I thought you were better than that AK!
Promising though.
November 2nd, 2009 at 2:25 am
Reagan was a hero of his time…but i think our modern republican party would do better to model itself after Eisenhower…rather than Reagan. Reagan faced the end of the cold war…and showed our strength in the face of the enemy…but few really did better than Eisenhower in that area. Eisenhower should be our model. Yes, he did some slight things to expand government…but he was a conservative…definitely. Honestly, the great benefit for him was that he didn’t have to do much to face social issues…and won over the woman’s vote better than any republican that i know of.
November 2nd, 2009 at 7:54 am
I found the Reagan question,during the debates, to be the most tiring. Who is the next Reagan, who governed like Reagan, who spoke like Reagan, who stood on principle like Reagan? And it was especially tiring to hear the candidates answer that they were like Reagan.
The other day, Hannity discussed Reagan on his panel, and one of the guests, a liberal guest, said that Reagan had many flaws as governor and that he would not have been able to win the primaries in “todays times.” Because how Reagan was president was different than how Reagan was governor.
I think we do the candidates a disservice by trying to hold them up to President Reagan. Instead we should be looking for a candidate who holds to his principles, speaks like he wants to be president to the whole United States, and outlines a plan for bringing America back from the brink.
November 2nd, 2009 at 8:02 am
When only 29% of the electorate consider Palin even ‘qualified’ to be President, I’d say we’re talking Goldwater here!
November 2nd, 2009 at 8:05 am
It’s mostly the Palin and Huckabee supporters at fault with all these nonsensical comparisons to Reagan. It gets tiresome because neither come close.
Here’s a headline for you from the Early show on CBS.
Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin says the time has come to stop the economic stimulus program, contending that it has not worked as the Obama administration planned.
Three days after the Obama White House touted the program as creating or saving some 650,000 jobs, Palin said in a nationally broadcast interview that “the stimulus that the president and the Congress passed is not what’s helped the economy.” Palin said on CBS’s “The Early Show” that the administration’s stimulus plan “didn’t work” and that the reason things seem to be ticking up in the business world is because the “private sector” has regained its equilibrium on its own.”
Sorry, couldn’t resist. Of course, it was not Palin, but everyday Romney fare this morning. If it had been Palin, the whole political world would be atwitter! RedState would be bonkers, and everyone would be talking about smart and brave she is!
She gets more attention that the rest of the GOP field combined, and more. Where it will all lead is anyone’s guess. I wouldn’t assume it will end well.
November 2nd, 2009 at 9:22 am
#25
“I found the Reagan question,during the debates, to be the most tiring.”
Notice that no one ever is looking for the next Ford, the next Bush, even the next Eisenhower. Candidates seek to identify with Reagan for the same reason that Generals sought to pattern themselves after Napoleon, Stonewall Jackson, MacArthur and Patton. They won….and they did so with style and panache. They all won by taking long chances…refusing to fight using the last war’s tactics. And they were all aggressive. REAGAN WON, AND HE WON BIG. And he brok the mod to do it, challenging Ford and the GOP establishment in 1976(and being roundly condemned for it by the Establishment) and very nearly suffering oblivion in the primaries, before the “hard right” Jesse Helms brought him back from the dead in North Carolina. And he was the most conservative candidate in the 20th Century.
Those of you who dislike Palin are not likely to be persuaded by anything short of electoral success in 2012. Be patient. It’s coming. TO those of you who are persuadable, ask yourself who among the current crop of GOP contenders is using unconventional methods, taking long chances and succeeding? Who among the contenders is the staunchest conservative by far? Because I have to honestly say that only Palin fits that bill, and has the charisma quotient which Reagan possessed, I see comparisons to Reagan, and I don’t apologize for it. Is she Reagan? No. But she is far closer to that template that Romney, Huckabee or any of the others you can name. ANd that is the template not only for victory but for realigning, redefining victory.
November 2nd, 2009 at 10:12 am
28. Palin is no more a staunch conservative than the other 3 top contenders, and less so in some specific ways.
Yes, she has star power mainly due to persona and attractiveness. But beyond that, she is not anything like Reagan.
Alex is right – everyone cherry pick characteristics that match Reagan, but it’s pretty pointless.
November 2nd, 2009 at 10:27 am
“28. Palin is no more a staunch conservative than the other 3 top contenders, and less so in some specific ways.
” Then what took them so long to endorse the Conservative in NY? Nevermind; they were afraid of losing your vote.
Poor, silly Mr. Huckabee, he thought that if he would just refrain from endorsing the anti-TARP candidate, he thought he would get a chance to capture Martha’s vote and the TARP wing of the party. He should have known that these people would never vote for him in the first place.
November 2nd, 2009 at 12:15 pm
30. I don’t fault Romney for not endorsing either Hoffman or Scozzafava. He did exactly the right thing, and was very clear on why.
I thought you voted for Huck in the 08 primary? Do you now regret that?
November 2nd, 2009 at 12:27 pm
“I thought you voted for Huck in the 08 primary? Do you now regret that?” Ah yes, I did vote for Mr. Huckabee in 2008. Why should I regret that when I did not know a whole about Mrs. Palin back then and she was not on the ballot (in 2008.) Shhhhhhhhhh, I was a little younger and more foolish a year and a half ago and if she was on the ballot, I probably would have told myself something silly like ‘why should I vote for that 1st term woman?’ but she has proven to be the real thing to me since then.
November 2nd, 2009 at 12:44 pm
BTW, Martha, I used to like Mr. Gingrich 20 months ago; I guess I get a bit more Conservative in my old age.
November 2nd, 2009 at 3:48 pm
” We’ll start with Governor Romney.
Would, and if so, why — why would Ronald Reagan endorse you? Would Ronald Reagan endorse you? And if so, why?
ROMNEY: Absolutely. Ronald Reagan would look at the issues that are being debated right here and say, one, we’re going to win in Iraq, and I’m not going to walk out of Iraq until we win in Iraq.
Ronald Reagan would say lower taxes. Ronald Reagan would say lower spending.
Ronald Reagan would — is pro-life. He would also say I want to have an amendment to protect marriage.
Ronald Reagan would say, as I do, that Washington is broken. And like Ronald Reagan, I’d go to Washington as an outsider — not owing favors, not lobbyists on every elbow. I would be able to be the independent outsider that Ronald Reagan was, and he brought change to Washington.
Ronald Reagan would say, yes, let’s drill in ANWR. Ronald Reagan would say, no way are we going to have amnesty again. Ronald Reagan saw it, it didn’t work. Let’s not do it again.
Ronald Reagan would say no to a 50-cent-per-gallon charge on Americans for energy that the rest of the world doesn’t have to pay.
Ronald Reagan would have said absolutely no way to McCain- Feingold.
I would be with Ronald Reagan. And this party, it has a choice, what the heart and soul of this party is going to be, and it’s going to have to be in the house that Ronald Reagan built.”
[clip]
“COOPER: Governor Huckabee?
(APPLAUSE)
HUCKABEE: I think it would be incredibly presumptuous and even arrogant for me to try to suggest what Ronald Reagan would do, that he would endorse any of us against the others.
Let me just say this, I’m not going to pretend he would endorse me. I wish he would. I would love that, but I endorse him, and I’m going to tell you why.
It wasn’t just his specific policies, but Ronald Reagan was something more than just a policy wonk. He was a man who loved this country, and he inspired this country to believe in itself again.
What made Ronald Reagan a great president was not just the intricacies of his policies, though they were good policies. It was that he loved America and saw it as a good nation and a great nation because of the greatness of its people.
And if we can recapture that, that’s when we recapture the Reagan spirit. It’s that spirit that has a can-do attitude about America’s futures and that makes us love our country whether we’re Democrats or Republicans. And that’s what I believe Ronald Reagan did — he brought this country back together and made us believe in ourselves.
And whether he believes in us, I hope we still believe in those things which made him a great leader and a great American.”
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/30/GOPdebate.transcript/
November 2nd, 2009 at 6:22 pm
#31
“I don’t fault Romney for not endorsing either Hoffman or Scozzafava.”
Martha,
You don’t fault Romney for for ANYTHING. No matter. His failure to take a stand in the race demonstrates yet again why he is no leade3r and why he will never be President. The man has no core convictions. He was pro-choice, then prolife. He was for Reagan and then against him and then for him again. He takes whatever position he thinks will garner him the most support at any give moment. It is a matter of trust. And, aside from you and the ever shrinking circle of Rombots, no one trusts him.
“Palin is no more a staunch conservative than the other 3 top contenders, and less so in some specific ways.”
What specific ways? Did she sponsor mandatory health care, with $50 copay abortions in Massachusetts? Has she ever been pro-choice? Did she ever support the so-called “assault weapons” ban? Did she ever raise taxes? Did she expand the size of state government? Did she ever disavow Ronald Reagan, as Romney did in the presence of Ted Kennedy, no less? I can give you quite a few more ways that Romney is less conservative than Palin.
Exactly how is Romney more conservative than Palin.
November 2nd, 2009 at 7:11 pm
“Exactly how is Romney more conservative than Palin.” Haha, that question gets harder to answer with each passing day.
November 2nd, 2009 at 8:02 pm
35. Sure, Romney was once pro-choice. But as governor, he was 100% pro-life, so there is no difference between Palin and Romney on the life issue. Palin admitted to considering abortion, thus diminishing the perception of being staunchly pro-life.
I think Romney has a much more fiscally conservative record than Palin. He was hired by Mass to fix their budget mess, and turned a huge budget deficit into a huge budget surplus without raising taxes. As mayor, Palin was a big porker, and left the town of Wasilla 20 million in debt. You also know that as Governor, she raised taxes on oil companies. The truth is that Palin did not need to deal with budget issues, as oil revenues were strong, and she also did not have one of the most hostile to repubs legislature in the country. In spite of that, Romney has a conservative record as governor.
Palin also had a habit of railing on Wall Street, playing her populist tune. That’s not exactly conservative.
Romney is against amnesty, Palin is not.
Palin said many times that she wants to walk across the aisle and get something done for the American people – which is essentially promising she will compromise with Democrats.
Didn’t Palin pass renewable energy mandates in Alaska?
The point is that you can cherry pick all day between the candidates, but there is very little difference in their positions. Palin invoking Reagan every day, does not transform her into the next Reagan.
The truth is that Palin was happy to be the maverick, moderate Governor of Alaska. Now she needs to be more conservative. She transformed herself in the way Romney is accused of doing, yet she has done so in a far shorter time frame.
November 2nd, 2009 at 9:34 pm
“Palin also had a habit of railing on Wall Street,” and Mr. Romney has a habit of railing against the people. See TARP and NY-23 for a start!
November 2nd, 2009 at 10:08 pm
“as governor, he was 100% pro-life”
November 2nd, 2009 at 11:01 pm
38. When has Romney ever railed against the people? LOL
I believe TARP was meant to keep us from a financial meltdown, and OJ, you don’t really know what would have happened without it, none of us do. But everyone agreed it was needed. Your Palin thought it was about healthcare, so she doesn’t count.
Romney did the right thing to stay the heck out23. Everyone should have stayed out of it. Now she’s jumping on McDonnell bandwagon to try and claim last minute credit, even though he made it clear he doesn’t want her anywhere near Virginia.
39. Yes, that is correct. He has a track record.
November 2nd, 2009 at 11:02 pm
39. You gal made quite a stir when she appointed a pro-choice judge, did she not?
November 2nd, 2009 at 11:40 pm
To 37:
FY 2007 Operating Budget (Murkowski’s Budget): $11,697,400,000
FY 2008 Operating Budget (Palin’s Budget): $9,813,000,000
FY 2009 Operating Budget: $11,200,000,000 ($11.2B)
FY 2010 Operating Budget: $9,700,000,000 ($9.7B)
Net Cut in Operating Budget: $1,500,000,000
Spending under Palin actually went down. She inherited a budget from Murkowsi, a big spending RINO in the Romney mold, that was 11.7 billion. She cut that to 9.8 billion in her first year and by the final budget she submitted for 2010, she had reduced state spending to 9.7 billion, a cut in spending of nearly 20%. 268 Million of the cut came via her veto pen.
And your assessment of her tenure as Mayor is not shared by the current mayor:
“In 2008, Wasilla’s mayor credited Palin’s tax cuts and infrastructural improvements with helping the local economy, “br[inging] the big-box stores to Wasilla, … helping Wasilla grow and draw 50,000 shoppers a day.” (Boston Globe, 9/3/08) The Boston Globe quoted a local business owner as crediting Palin with making the town “more of a community … It’s no longer a little strip town that you can blow through in a heartbeat.”
And Romney?
A Very Sick Health Plan
Bay State’s ‘Grand Experiment’ Fails
For folks increasingly leery of President Obama’s plan to radically overhaul America’s health-care system, or 17 percent of the nation’s economy, all this could hardly have come at a better time — that is, fiscal troubles aplenty within Repubican Mitt Romney’s brainchild, Massachusetts’ “grand experiment” in “universal” health care.
Initiated on Mr. Romney’s gubernatorial watch in 2006, this “experiment” has fallen on hard times, and predictably so. Even though the Bay State commenced its program with a far smaller percentage of uninsured residents than exists nationwide, “RomneyCare” is threatening to bankrupt the state. Budgeted for Fiscal Year 2010 at $880 million, or 7.3 percent more than a year ago, this plan, aimed at providing low- or no-cost health coverage to roughly 165,000 residents, has caused Massachusetts’ overall expenditures on all health-related programs to jump an astounding 42 percent since 2006.
http://www.dailynews-record.com/opinion_details.php?AID=36689&CHID=36
Mitt Romney was an unmitigated disaster for Massachusetts. RomneyCare has served one useful purpose, however. It has absolutely destroyed any chance he had of ever becoming President of the United States. That is perhaps its only utility, in addition to being the poster child for why its national counterpart, Obamacare, would be similarly disastrous.
It would take too long to dissect Romney’s multiple stands on Immigration, Abortion and assorted other issues. He is no conservative and he is not even a competent manager, as witness the Romney Health care debacle that was his signature proposal (with its $50 taxpayer funded abortions).
Calling Palin a moderate does not make her so, and it is demonstrably not the case, but calling Mitt Romney a conservative is downright hilarious.
November 2nd, 2009 at 11:43 pm
“39. Yes, that is correct. He has a track record.”
$50 copay taxpayer funded abortions. Thanks to Mitt.
November 2nd, 2009 at 11:48 pm
#41
“9. You gal made quite a stir when she appointed a pro-choice judge, did she not?”
He had to choose from among the three that the Judicial commission nominated. Her hands were tied. And you know it. You just spew the talking points. they won’t work. They have already been debunked.
Why don’t you try explaining the scores of left wing judges whom Romney appointed when he didn’t have to? I can give you their names and records, but we both know who they are.
November 3rd, 2009 at 8:11 am
42, 43, 44. Ha, ha. Can you be intellectually honest? I can. Yes, Palin was limited in her options for selecting the Supreme Court judge. But it’s absolutely true that she chose the pro-choice judge because the other gentleman was hostile to her other policy priorities.I think it’s hilarious that you defend Palin over her limited choices for judges, yet you know darn well Romney operated under even more difficult constraints – Romney also had to choose from what the legislature sent up to him. Where he departs, I think, from what Palin did is that he based his choice on who had the best record of being tough on crime.
You spew the talking points, Zebra. $50 abortions are not Romney’s fault and you know it. That’s been debunked.
Okay, now I’m done talking to you Zebra, because you are irrational.
Did you really write this?
“Mitt Romney was an unmitigated disaster for Massachusetts. RomneyCare has served one useful purpose, however. It has absolutely destroyed any chance he had of ever becoming President of the United States. That is perhaps its only utility, in addition to being the poster child for why its national counterpart, Obamacare, would be similarly disastrous.
It would take too long to dissect Romney’s multiple stands on Immigration, Abortion and assorted other issues. He is no conservative and he is not even a competent manager, as witness the Romney Health care debacle that was his signature proposal (with its $50 taxpayer funded abortions).”
I think anyone would find it impossible to have an intelligent conversation with you.
November 3rd, 2009 at 9:05 am
#45
“Did you really write this?”
Yea. I wrote it. It’s absolutely true. And you are irrational if you think otherwise, given how topical health care reform is now. (But then you are perhaps the only Rombot who is delusionial enough to say “Mitt made the right decision in NY-23″; There aren’t a half dozen people in the United States that believe this, and certainly no one with any intellectual honesty) Romney is a complete phony, and I hope he wastes his money again in 2012. He is so transparent and slippery, that it will be VERY EASY for her to beat him.
I have already been over the $50 abortions and how Romney could have vetoed it. I can explain it to you but I can’t make you understand or acknowledge it. If a governor signs rather than veotes a bill, he OWNS it. I know Mitt does not like to take responsibility for anything or take any risks (Which is why he is unfit to lead), but his “John Hancock” on Romneycare with the $50 abortions make them “his fault”. Prolifers know it and we are not forgetting. He won’t be the nominee. Take it to the bank.
November 3rd, 2009 at 11:16 am
46. Zebra, there are $50 abortions in Mass regardless of the healthcare bill Romney signed. It had nothing to do with it.
The truth is that Romney takes responsibility for everything he’s done, and this is so ironic coming from a Palin supporter who blames everyone but herself for all her problems!
Honestly, Palin is the biggest whiner, blamer we’ve seen since Huck.
Romney has said over and over and over that his the bill was not perfect. I just can’t believe you would make that accusation, of all the things you could say. Romney is the one leader of the top 3 who actually does take responsibility for everything he says and does.
It’s just more proof that you don’t want an honest discussion. All the things you write about Palin are over the top, and all the things about Romney are just the same old lies.
Of course Romney did the right thing in NY23! Have you read any of the comments here? A lage number of posters think he was right, and almost all the others don’t fault him for not endorsing Hoffman. The truth is that Romney is all over the country helping conservatives get elected – by campaigning for them and with money, and trying to keep the GOP strong. Palin is doing nothing of the sort, and is instead throwing firebombs at the GOP. She thinks she is “THE ONE” to usher in the change that is needed. Shoot, let’s hope she doesn’t blow up the GOP in the process, because as dis-functional as it is, is remains the only viable home for conservatives.
This is a truly a real Alice-in-Wonderland kind of conversation with you, where facts don’t matter. I guess I just won’t bother anymore.