McCain Hatred, Conservative Amnesia & the Cult of Reagan

Share
”It is unlikely that the Reagan era
will prove to be the historic change
in the direction of America that we have sought.”
Edwin J. Feulner Jr., president of the Heritage Foundation,1985.

The following is from a Pink Flamingo post..

Hugh Hewitt on Rick Santorum (loser) on John McCain

“…: Well, number one, John McCain will not get the base of the Republican Party. I mean, there was a reason John McCain collapsed last year, and it’s because he was the frontrunner, and everybody in the Republican Party got a chance to look at him. And when they looked at him, they wait well, wait a minute, he’s not with us on almost all of the core issues of…on the economic side, he was against the President’s tax cuts, he was bad on immigration. On the environment, he’s absolutely terrible. He buys into the complete left wing environmentalist movement in this country. He is for bigger government on a whole laundry list of issues. He was…I mean, on medical care, I mean, he was for re-importation of drugs. I mean, you can go on down the list. I mean, this is a guy who on a lot of the core economic issues, is not even close to being a moderate, in my opinion. And then on the issue of, on social conservative issues, you point to me one time John McCain every took the floor of the United States Senate to talk about a social conservative issue. It never happened. I mean, this is a guy who says he believes in these things, but I can tell you, inside the room, when we were in these meetings, there was nobody who fought harder not to have these votes before the United States Senate on some of the most important social conservative issues, whether it’s marriage or abortion or the like. He always fought against us to even bring them up, because he was uncomfortable voting for them. So I mean, this is just not a guy I think in the end that washes with the mainstream of the Republican Party….”


Santorum puts McCain in august company, because Paul Weyrich, who once detested Reagan and now lies about it as he supports Mitt Romney detested Reagan.

Like their criticism of Bush, the Heritage Foundation found that Reagan was not conservative enough for them.  One wonders what Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh would have said of Reagan had they been in power during his presidency. See if you recognize any of these names, all of whom now vocally criticize GWB.  NY Times, Nov 25, 1983.

“….To some, he has sounded an uncertain trumpet, missed golden opportunities, compromised too often and drifted from his conservative moorings. To others, he has changed the direction of Government in a way that Democrats will be hard-pressed to reverse. To still others, he has had a mixed bag of successes and failures.

Such are the findings of the Heritage Foundation, a Washington policy group that has been both an occasional critic of and an intellectual resource for the Reagan Administration. In an effort to explore the depth of conservative discontent as well as satisfaction with the President, it recently asked a number of prominent conservative activists, intellectuals, politicians and writers to rate how he was doing.

The foundation, which periodically runs such surveys, plans to publish its findings shortly. But foundation sources have provided a preview of what is to come.

What they were unable to provide was what effect, if any, the division in conservative ranks might have on Mr. Reagan’s re-election chances. For a number of the doubters, provided the dissatisfaction is not too deep, Mr. Reagan could still be the only acceptable candidate. Not Enough ‘Reaganauts’…John T. Dolan, chairman of the National Conservative Political Action Committee, contended that the tax cut would be the only real historic achievement of Mr. Reagan’s Presidency. ”I expected more to happen,” said this disappointed conservative activist. ”There has been no major defense buildup beyond what Carter would have done. There has been no spending cut. There has been no turnover of control to the states. There has been no effort to dismantle the Washing bureaucratic elitist establishment.”

M. Stanton Evans, a newspaper columnist, is no less disappointed. ”This has been essentially another Ford Administration,” he said in his critique. ”It has been business as usual, not much different from any other Republican administration of our lifetime. It has been an Administration populated by corporate executive types.” Everyone knows, he added, that ”people used to the decorum of the boardroom back off from controversy.”

Representative Newt Gingrich, Republican of Georgia, saw Mr. Reagan as ”the only coherent revolutionary in an Administration of accommodationist advisers.” His chief criticism: ”The Administration has had no capacity to launch strategic offenses on behalf of Reagan’s vision.” After Mr. Reagan won his tax and budget cuts in the spring of 1981, Mr. Gingrich added, someone in the White House should have been asking, ”What do we do to keep up momentum?” Instead, he said, Mr. Reagan returned from California in August to a ”vacuum of activity” and a new political agenda that had been set by Democrats. ”Political debate was once again totally enmeshed in the rhetoric and values of the liberal welfare state,” Mr. Gingrich said. Waste in Spending Cited Howard Phillips, national director of the Conservative Caucus and one of Mr. Reagan’s earliest and sharpest critics, asserted: ”Reagan is just the sort of nice fellow I’d like to have as a neighbor, but he defers too quickly to anyone in a three-piece suit.”…Cal Thomas, vice president of communications for Moral Majority, credited the President for transforming public thinking on Government spending, but faulted him for his leadership on the abortion issue. ”If we balance the budget and we still keep murdering a million and a half babies every year, there’s no way we can say we’re better off than we were four years ago,” said Mr. Thomas. Paul M. Weyrich, executive director of the Committee for the Survival of a Free Congress, said Mr. Reagan’s eagerness to avoid political confrontations with Congress robbed him of victories that he might have had. Sadly, Mr. Weyrich wrote, ”The radical surgery that was required in Washington was not performed. Ronald Reagan made a pledge not to touch entitlement programs, and that’s one of the few pledges he has kept absolutely.”…”


This same Paul Weyrich, who now pretends to worship the false god he is creating. This Paul Weyrich Jan 10, 2007 article in Human Events, “The Need for Conservative Unity” is laughable considering the way Weyrich treated Ronald Reagan when Reagan was POTUS.  Or, as the Boston Post put it on June 30, 1985, God Save Reagan from His Friends!

“…President Reagan’s best friends were the liberals, and his worst critics were his longtime conservative cheerleaders as the Beirut hostage crisis finally took a turn for the better.

With prospects of a deal finally bringing the hostages home, there’s talk of scores to settle later. Along with possible retaliation against the hijackers, there are some domestic political scores to settle, as well. The loudest cries for the Rambo Response came from the right. Never mind the hostages’ lives, never mind the president’s own eloquent explanation that random retaliation against possibly innocent Arabs in Lebanon would make the United States no better than the terrorists themselv es. These folks were riled up, and they wanted us to Do Something! “Jimmy Reagan,” sneered the Wall Street Journal editorial page, as the president it adores on economics tried to be a statesman instead of acting like Sylvester Stallone’s shoot-first-and-grunt-questions-lat er Rambo character. Norman Podhoretz, one of the neo-conservatives who furnished intellectual window-dressing for the New Right, mocks Reagan as “a pitifully crippled hawk” who refuses to “risk life in defense of the national honor.”

Podhoretz speaks for all those who apparently really believed that massive military expenditures and saber-rattling rhetoric would make us rulers of the world. The vitriol with which some of Reagan’s closest supporters now question his conduct shows us that no one is safe from being branded a gutless appeaser when the New Right is in full panic. “While Reaganites fear their leader is being Carterized,” moaned conservatives Rowland Evans and Robert Novak in an alas-and-alack column, “a princip al perpetrator of the transformation is the president himself.”…. The brilliant organizer of the New Right revolution, Paul Weyrich, who first realized the potential of harnessing abortion foes, born-again Christians, critics of the Panama Canal treaty and school-prayer partisans into an effective political force, knows an inflammable issue when he sees one. So he whipped up a New Right claque to fan the flames for harsh retaliation.

“By failing to carry out our threats against terrorists, we have invited more terrorism,” said Weyrich in announcing his umpteenth pressure group, Coalition for Actions Against Terrorism. His first target: Secretary of State George Shultz. Shultz said last fall: “The public must understand before the fact that there is potential for loss of life of some of our fighting men and the loss of life of some innocent people.”

But Weyrich and his allies fear Reagan is pussyfooting, now that the nightly news shows our hostages in all their vulnerability. So Weyrich targets Shultz. Reagan is still untouchable; the president is beloved by all the folks whose $10 and $20 checks fuel the New Right’s direct mail operation.

The New Right savaged Carter all through the 1980 election campaign, assailing his manhood, his judgment, his nerve. The New Right can’t quite target Reagan with the same vehemence, so Shultz is dragged in as the surrogate weak sister….”


REAGAN AND THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION
About six months ago I did an article about Reagan and conservatives.
“On Oct 14, 1983, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported that …

…President Reagan isn’t doing particularly well among evangelical and born- again Christian voters, according to a new poll that one “new right” leader said yesterday should set off “an alarm bell” at the White House. The poll said Reagan was running only roughly even with Sen. John Glenn of Ohio in a potential 1984 presidential matchup. While Reagan held a substantial lead over former Vice President Walter F. Mondale in the poll…”


And, like George W. Bush, conservatives like Richard Viguerie threatened Reagan in the Miami Herald, on Jan 21, 1984.

“…Conservatives may not back President Reagan for reelection in 1984 unless he reverses what they consider “almost a stampede to the left” in the White House, New Right leaders said Tuesday. “Quick and comprehensive changes” in Reagan’s staff and policies are needed to win back longtime supporters in the conservative wing of the Republican Party, they indicated. Howard Phillips, who heads the Conservative Caucus, and Richard Viguerie…’


And like their criticism of Bush, the Heritage Foundation found that Reagan was not conservative enough for them.  One wonders what Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh would have said of Reagan had they been in power during his presidency. See if you recognize any of these names, all of whom now vocally criticize GWB.  NY Times, Nov 25, 1983.

“….To some, he has sounded an uncertain trumpet, missed golden opportunities, compromised too often and drifted from his conservative moorings. To others, he has changed the direction of Government in a way that Democrats will be hard-pressed to reverse. To still others, he has had a mixed bag of successes and failures.

Such are the findings of the Heritage Foundation, a Washington policy group that has been both an occasional critic of and an intellectual resource for the Reagan Administration. In an effort to explore the depth of conservative discontent as well as satisfaction with the President, it recently asked a number of prominent conservative activists, intellectuals, politicians and writers to rate how he was doing.

The foundation, which periodically runs such surveys, plans to publish its findings shortly. But foundation sources have provided a preview of what is to come.

What they were unable to provide was what effect, if any, the division in conservative ranks might have on Mr. Reagan’s re-election chances. For a number of the doubters, provided the dissatisfaction is not too deep, Mr. Reagan could still be the only acceptable candidate. Not Enough ‘Reaganauts’…John T. Dolan, chairman of the National Conservative Political Action Committee, contended that the tax cut would be the only real historic achievement of Mr. Reagan’s Presidency. ”I expected more to happen,” said this disappointed conservative activist. ”There has been no major defense buildup beyond what Carter would have done. There has been no spending cut. There has been no turnover of control to the states. There has been no effort to dismantle the Washing bureaucratic elitist establishment.”

M. Stanton Evans, a newspaper columnist, is no less disappointed. ”This has been essentially another Ford Administration,” he said in his critique. ”It has been business as usual, not much different from any other Republican administration of our lifetime. It has been an Administration populated by corporate executive types.” Everyone knows, he added, that ”people used to the decorum of the boardroom back off from controversy.”

Representative Newt Gingrich, Republican of Georgia, saw Mr. Reagan as ”the only coherent revolutionary in an Administration of accommodationist advisers.” His chief criticism: ”The Administration has had no capacity to launch strategic offenses on behalf of Reagan’s vision.” After Mr. Reagan won his tax and budget cuts in the spring of 1981, Mr. Gingrich added, someone in the White House should have been asking, ”What do we do to keep up momentum?” Instead, he said, Mr. Reagan returned from California in August to a ”vacuum of activity” and a new political agenda that had been set by Democrats. ”Political debate was once again totally enmeshed in the rhetoric and values of the liberal welfare state,” Mr. Gingrich said. Waste in Spending Cited Howard Phillips, national director of the Conservative Caucus and one of Mr. Reagan’s earliest and sharpest critics, asserted: ”Reagan is just the sort of nice fellow I’d like to have as a neighbor, but he defers too quickly to anyone in a three-piece suit.”…Cal Thomas, vice president of communications for Moral Majority, credited the President for transforming public thinking on Government spending, but faulted him for his leadership on the abortion issue. ”If we balance the budget and we still keep murdering a million and a half babies every year, there’s no way we can say we’re better off than we were four years ago,” said Mr. Thomas. Paul M. Weyrich, executive director of the Committee for the Survival of a Free Congress, said Mr. Reagan’s eagerness to avoid political confrontations with Congress robbed him of victories that he might have had. Sadly, Mr. Weyrich wrote, ”The radical surgery that was required in Washington was not performed. Ronald Reagan made a pledge not to touch entitlement programs, and that’s one of the few pledges he has kept absolutely.”…”


In fact, in 1987, the Heritage Foundation turned on Reagan.  Yep, it’s true.
“…Heritage Foundation supporters feared Reagan would cave to the  USSR. Boston Globe – Dec 3, 1987

“…WASHINGTON — It was no accident that brought President Reagan before the conservative Heritage Foundation Monday to deliver a hard-line speech on his agenda for next week’s summit meeting with the Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev.

Some of his his longest and most ardent conservative supporters have expressed dark thoughts and whispers that Reagan may be about to “cave in” to the Soviets in an effort to achieve a dramatic, long-range agreement to halve the number of long-range nuclear weapons possessed by the superpowers. Despite his repeated denials, these conservative critics charge that Reagan is about to compromise on development of the Strategic Defense Initiative, the proposed space-based missile shield that they portray as the cornerstone in future US nuclear defense capability….”There’s a real feeling among us that we are about to be sold out on arms control the same way it’s happened on budget cuts and taxes,” said James T. Hackett, a former official of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency and now a senior scholar at the Heritage Foundation.

“While he’s given us his rhetoric about a strong defense, the only actions he’s taken involve compromising or overlooking their violations,” Hackett said. “Betrayal may be too strong a word for what we feel right now, but there is a very strong sense of disillusionment.”

Hackett theorized that Reagan might have made a secret deal with Gorbachev in October to persuade the Soviet leader to give up his sudden reluctance to participate in the Washington summit. The terms of the secret deal: Attend the summit and Reagan agrees to bargain on SDI. Under that bargain, Reagan would accept a narrow interpretation of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which prohibits deployment in space of defenses resembling SDI, or agree to negotiate on limits on its testing…”

CONSERVATIVES AGAINST REAGAN
I know, it is hard to swallow but today’s hard line, far far far right conservatives who worship at the new cult of Reagan absolutely detested him when he was POTUS, and did their best to hurt him.
Paul Weyrich, who has endorsed Mitt Romney, once said about Ronald Reagan,


“…”I’m very concerned,” said New Right leader Weyrich, a frequent White House visitor in recent days. “The position right now seems designed to get an agreement with Moscow. It’s getting a great push from Nancy Reagan so that there can be a Nobel Prize at the end for her husband.”

Adds Howard Phillips of the Conservative Caucus, “I think it may be the same game Nixon played back in 1974 at the height of Watergate, using talks with Leonid Brezhnev as a prop to show that he was still an effective president. . .

“On this and other foreign and domestic issues, the concern I have is that our options are not going to be presented forcefully . . .”

Weyrich is only slightly less gloomy.

“In the very short-term, we’re going to know whether conservatives are just window-dressing,” he said. “Howard Baker is saying to everybody and his mother that he wants to really reach out to us. We’ll soon see.”

Many White House watchers take the mood of those on the New Right as a clue to which direction Reagan is moving in, which means the signs appear to point toward the middle — recalling Reagan’s moderation and compromises during his second term as governor of California in the early 1970s. Howard Phillips accepts the analogy but adds a warning to all Republicans.

“As Reagan drifted to more of a consensus politician, he bought surcease from heavy criticism,” he said. “But in the process he also spent all his time responding to his opponents’ agenda, in effect legitimizing it. Just in case anyone has forgotten, I believe Reagan was succeeded as governor by Jerry Brown.’…’


This same Paul Weyrich, who now pretends to worship the false god he is creating, once wrote,
This Paul Weyrich Jan 10, 2007 article in Human Events, “The Need for Conservative Unity” is laughable considering the way Weyrich treated Ronald Reagan when Reagan was POTUS.  Or, as the Boston Post put it on June 30, 1985, God Save Reagan from His Friends!

“…President Reagan’s best friends were the liberals, and his worst critics were his longtime conservative cheerleaders as the Beirut hostage crisis finally took a turn for the better.

With prospects of a deal finally bringing the hostages home, there’s talk of scores to settle later. Along with possible retaliation against the hijackers, there are some domestic political scores to settle, as well. The loudest cries for the Rambo Response came from the right. Never mind the hostages’ lives, never mind the president’s own eloquent explanation that random retaliation against possibly innocent Arabs in Lebanon would make the United States no better than the terrorists themselv es. These folks were riled up, and they wanted us to Do Something! “Jimmy Reagan,” sneered the Wall Street Journal editorial page, as the president it adores on economics tried to be a statesman instead of acting like Sylvester Stallone’s shoot-first-and-grunt-questions-lat er Rambo character. Norman Podhoretz, one of the neo-conservatives who furnished intellectual window-dressing for the New Right, mocks Reagan as “a pitifully crippled hawk” who refuses to “risk life in defense of the national honor.”

Podhoretz speaks for all those who apparently really believed that massive military expenditures and saber-rattling rhetoric would make us rulers of the world. The vitriol with which some of Reagan’s closest supporters now question his conduct shows us that no one is safe from being branded a gutless appeaser when the New Right is in full panic. “While Reaganites fear their leader is being Carterized,” moaned conservatives Rowland Evans and Robert Novak in an alas-and-alack column, “a princip al perpetrator of the transformation is the president himself.”…. The brilliant organizer of the New Right revolution, Paul Weyrich, who first realized the potential of harnessing abortion foes, born-again Christians, critics of the Panama Canal treaty and school-prayer partisans into an effective political force, knows an inflammable issue when he sees one. So he whipped up a New Right claque to fan the flames for harsh retaliation.

“By failing to carry out our threats against terrorists, we have invited more terrorism,” said Weyrich in announcing his umpteenth pressure group, Coalition for Actions Against Terrorism. His first target: Secretary of State George Shultz. Shultz said last fall: “The public must understand before the fact that there is potential for loss of life of some of our fighting men and the loss of life of some innocent people.”

But Weyrich and his allies fear Reagan is pussyfooting, now that the nightly news shows our hostages in all their vulnerability. So Weyrich targets Shultz. Reagan is still untouchable; the president is beloved by all the folks whose $10 and $20 checks fuel the New Right’s direct mail operation.

The New Right savaged Carter all through the 1980 election campaign, assailing his manhood, his judgment, his nerve. The New Right can’t quite target Reagan with the same vehemence, so Shultz is dragged in as the surrogate weak sister….”


I also realized John McCain, Mike Huckabee, and Rudy Giuliani are in excellent company.  They are being treated by the very ones who want to create a conservative cult around Reagan the same way the same individuals treated Reagan.  They should be honored.  It also tells me the three men are doing something right.

In that same Pink Flamingo article I did, I wrote

They called Reagan a Useful Idiot.

Howard Phillips, chairman of The Conservative Caucus  may claim to worship Reagan today, but while Reagan was POTUS, Phillips was constantly denouncing him.  On Oct 16, 1983, in the NYTimes, Phillips compared Reagan to “Chamberlin”.

“…The American right wing was infuriated. ”The President has adopted the rhetoric of Churchill and the policies of Neville Chamberlain,” fumed Howard Phillips, chairman of the Conservative Caucus. Stung, Mr. Reagan retorted: ”Vengeance isn’t the name of the game.”


On Dec 15, 1987 The Boston Globe reported that Howard Phillips…

“…Americans who heard the chairman of the Conservative Caucus, Howard Phillips, call Reagan “a useful idiot for Soviet propaganda” knew they had strayed into the darker corridors of the conservative cellar. The yelping from Phillips and Richard Viguerie, the direct-mail entrepreneur of the rabid right, can be interpreted as either the symptom of a hallucinatory condition or a calculated political stunt to prevent Reagan’s belated effort at statecraft from discrediting conservative dogma.

When the president said right-wingers opposing the INF treaty believe, in their deepest thoughts, that war between the superpowers is inevitable, he expressed an understanding that had to rankle the fanatics who thought they were responsible for placing Reagan in the White House.

With an inquisitorial flourish, they excommunicated their erstwhile conservative champion for his heretical statement, uttered on camera, that Gorbachev is different from his predecessors because he does not seek communist domination of the world.

The reactionaries’ attacks on Nancy Reagan, chief of staff Howard Baker, Secretary of State George Shultz and Defense Secretary Frank Carlucci were not only displays of bad taste; they also revealed a right-wing demonology.

Phillips wrote in The New York Times that Reagan has fallen under the spell of advisers who “have advanced policies that benefit Armand Hammer and David Rockefeller but hurt America.” In this conspiratorial world view, “summit meetings and so-called arms-control treaties are a cover for the treasonous greed of those who manipulate the administration.”..”


The beauty of all of this is people like Phillips, Weyrich and Viguerie were vocally against some of Reagan’s greatest triumphs, you know the ones – they brought down the USSR.  They officially turned on him in January of 1988 as is seen in this NYTimes Jan 17 article.  We need to put something into perspective here.  Richard Viguerie, Howard Phillips, etc. were complaining (like Ron Paul is now) about Reagan taking on the USSR.  Now the worship Reagan for ending the Cold War and breaking the USSR with a policy they decried. You gotta love it.  These people never change.

“…A sharp split developed over strategy. Howard Phillips, chairman of the Conservative Caucus, and Richard Viguerie, the direct-mail specialist, wanted the conservative movement to break openly with Reagan. Others agreed to fight his policies but argued that it was bad politics to attack the President personally, urging their colleagues to ”Remember N.C.P.A.C.,” the National Conservative Political Action Committee. After the Soviet Union shot down a Korean airliner in 1983, the committee’s chairman at the time, John T. (Terry) Dolan, had attacked President Reagan for not being tougher with Moscow. ”It boomeranged,” said one conservative leader. ”Some people wrote that they’d never give N.C.P.A.C. another dime” because of Dolan’s criticisms.

At the Ramada Inn dinner, the leaders decided to set up a new coalition, the Anti-Appeasement Alliance, which would fight the trend exemplified by the INF treaty but would not attack the President personally. However, in a television interview two days later, Reagan infuriated old allies by declaring that foes of the INF treaty believed war with Moscow was inevitable; and he seemed to excuse Gorbachev’s occupation of Afghanistan by saying that the Soviet leader had inherited the policy.

The next day, Phillips charged that Reagan was ”fronting as a useful idiot for Soviet propaganda.” In the Senate, several longtime Reagan supporters voiced outrage at Reagan. Boomed Malcolm Wallop: ”Almost as offensive as his calling us warmongers was his apology for the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.”

The right-wing alarm grew during the Reagan-Gorbachev summit, which many hard-liners condemned as ”a love-in.” Some right-wing leaders moved quickly to exert grass-roots pressure on the Senate, tapping various networks: the Christian right; the ethnic, anti-Communist right, made up mainly of refugees from places such as Estonia, the Ukraine, Cuba, Korea, and Vietnam; as well as traditional pro-defense groups, such as the Coalition for Peace Through Strength, which fought earlier arms treaties.

In a letter mailed to 110,000 people, John M. Fisher, the 65-year-old chairman of the American Security Council, urged members to barrage the Senate with letters opposing the treaty. Fisher persuaded retired Adm. Thomas Moorer, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and more than 2,000 other retired admirals and generals to sign a petition opposing any arms agreements that ”would lock” the United States ”into strategic or military inferiority” or ”make our allies more vulnerable, like the proposed INF treaty.” Sixty organizations endorsed the petition, Fisher said, including Citizens for Reagan, the Naval Reserve Association, the Assembly of Captive European Nations, the American Federation of Small Business and the National Confederation of Ethnic Groups.

A parallel drive to galvanize right-wing protest was mounted by Howard Phillips, the stout, tart-tongued, 46-year-old former political campaign organizer and founder of the Conservative Caucus. Phillips showered 175,000 letters on his caucus members, and mailed audio cassettes of General Rogers’s 30-minute attack on the INF treaty to 5,000 delegates and alternates to the 1984 Republican National Convention.

But Phillips’s knock-out punch will be a full-page ad scheduled to run this month in such conservative-minded newspapers as The Washington Times and New Hampshire’s Manchester Union-Leader. Under the headline, ”Appeasement is as unwise in 1988 as in 1938,” photos of Reagan and Gorbachev are paired with photos of Neville Chamberlain and Hitler, followed by the appeal: ”Help Us Defeat the Reagan-Gorbachev INF Treaty.”

Other leaders, such as Daniel L. Casey of the American Conservative Union and Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Foundation, are quietly lobbying Senators. They hope to tie the treaty’s passage to tough conditions on arms control, conventional forces, Afghanistan, or human rights. These conservatives are poised to launch mass campaigns as soon as right-wing leaders inside the Senate decide what conditions to fight for.

”The only way these campaigns work,” said Weyrich, ”is when the inside and outside work together.”…”


RICHARD VIGUERIE TURNS ON REAGAN

Viguerie detests George W. Bush.
He likes to wax poetic about how he supported Reagan, but the truth is much different. We could use a few nice phrases to describe what he said, but I like the “L-Word”.  Richard Viguerie is lying about his relationship and how he treated Ronald Reagan.  He treated President Ronald Reagan like dirt.

“HOW THE FOUNDER OF THE CHRISTIAN COALITION BETRAYED REAGAN!

“…“Sixty-five months into Bush’s presidency, conservatives feel betrayed… The main cause of conservatives’ anger with Bush is this: He talked like a conservative to win our votes but never governed like a conservative.” — Richard Viguerie, “Bush’s Base Betrayal,” The Washington Post, Sunday, May 21, 2006

Then

“[Richard Viguerie], who also is a leading fund-raiser for conservative candidates, indicated he would not support Reagan in 1984, adding: ‘I’m very disillusioned with a president that walks away from the Soviet Union.’” — “Conservative Leader Blasts Reagan on Plane Reaction,” Associated Press, September 8, 1983


“‘Just like Jimmy Carter gave conservatives the back of the hand, we see the same thing happening in the Reagan administration,’” said Richard Viguerie, the direct-mail wizard who is the leading fund-raiser for conservative candidates and causes. ‘Almost every conservative I have talked to in the last two months has been disappointed in the initial appointments to the Reagan cabinet,’ Viguerie said.”– “Conservatives Angry with Reagan,” Associated Press, January 27, 1981

“‘The White House slapped us in the face,’ says Richard A. Viguerie, the conservative direct-mail expert. ‘The White House is saying you don’t have a constituency we’re concerned about. We don’t care about you.’” — “For Reagan and the New Right, the Honeymoon Is Over,” Washington Post, July 21, 1981

“[M]any longtime conservative activists are not buying Reagan’s rhetoric. ‘The emperor has no clothes on; just about every conservative I know is now acknowledging it,’ said Viguerie.” — “Reagan Seeks to Calm His Right-Wing Critics” Los Angeles Times, September 6, 1987


“In other important matters he [Reagan] has changed sides and he is now allied with his former adversaries, the liberals, the Democrats and the Soviets,” said Viguerie.” — “Conservatives Hit Reagan on Treaty,” Los Angeles Times, December 5, 1987

“Eight years after Reagan’s nomination for president, the conservative movement is directionless” — Richard Viguerie, “What Reagan Revolution?” The Washington Post, August 21, 1988


Richard A. Viguerie Replies to White House:

Apparently the White House’s response to my article in the May 21 Washington Post is to send out an e-mail from Peter H. Wehner, Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of the White House Office of Strategic Initiatives, consisting of six quotes by me criticizing Ronald Reagan during his presidency.

That’s a lot easier than trying to respond to my arguments. That’s a lot easier than trying to explain away the many examples I give of how Bush has betrayed the conservative movement. And that is standard operating procedure for this White House: Put the spotlight on the president’s critic, rather than respond to the critic’s arguments.

Peter, I plead guilty to your implied criticism of me. I am, indeed, a consistent conservative. I put loyalty to conservative principles above loyalty to the Republican Party or a politician.


Yes, I followed that policy even during the Reagan presidency. President Reagan was a hero to me and most conservatives. I voted for him in 1980 and 1984, and the conservative organizations that used my direct mail services helped elect him to the White House. But he was not perfect by any means, and his administration disappointed conservatives on a number of issues. Reagan’s true friends were those who would tell him when he was not governing as a conservative, such as the appointments of Sandra Day O’Connor and Anthony Kennedy to the Supreme Court, the tax increases of 1982 and 1983, and signing into law the amnesty of illegal aliens in 1986.

As I explain in my forthcoming book, Conservatives Betrayed,

This is why conservatives must maintain their independence. Our job as conservatives is not to be mouthpieces for any administration, but to give credit where credit is due, and to give criticism where criticism is due.

This is why the proper role for the conservative movement is to act as a Third Force in American politics, rather than a third party. Our constant goal is to return the Republican Party to conservative principles and to move the Democratic Party to the right as well.

In the 1960s we conservatives learned how to nominate a conservative (Barry Goldwater) for the presidency. During the 1970s and in 1980, we conservatives learned how to nominate and elect a conservative (Ronald Reagan) as president. The remaining task for conservatives is to nominate and elect a president who will govern as a conservative….”


HONEST DISAGREEMENT
There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with disagreeing with a candidate.  Pursuing Holiness had a novel way of describing Mike Huckabee.  I see nothing wrong with it because there is no hate being spewed, just an honest difference of opinion.  It’s like me and Tancredo.  I’d vote for Hillary first.  Now, contrast it with the Blog Lizards version. One is reasonable, the other is based on mis-information a closed mind.

DJ Drummond wrote on Wizbang : Hugh Hewitt Arrogant Shill, well, that about says it for me, too.

“…As much as I normally respect and applaud Hugh Hewitt on his thoughts and opinions, in this case he is doing Governor Romney no favors, as he is showing himself a shill in behavior and arrogant in character, and feeding the greatest weakness in the Republican side of the election, the sense that if the preferable candidate does not gain the nomination, that the Republican nominee should be abandoned. Hewitt is doing the DNC’s work for them when he forgets that any Republican is better than any Democrat in this election, and that while it is right and good to support your man, you must not do so by tearing down the good qualities of other contenders.

Hewitt owes apologies to all of the Republican candidates for President. To Giuliani and Thompson for his silence on their qualifications on the issues he pretends only Romney has addressed, to McCain and Huckabee for refusing to balance their credentials in the light of actual positions and for overstating their errors and missteps, portraying each as an enemy of the Republicans rather than simply less desirable from his point-of-view. To Ron Paul, Duncan Hunter, and Alan Keyes, for treating them as not worthy of mention simply because they do not lead in the race. And to Mitt Romney, for being a distinctly uncivil partisan while presenting himself as a supporter. Friends like Hewitt are doing Romney no favors….”


Share