Reagan, Viguerie, Tea Parties & Hating Lindsey


“...Richard Viguerie, a conservative fund-raiser, said Mr. Reagan ”is now aligned wih his former adversaries: the liberals, the Democrats and the Soviets.”  December 6, 1987

For years The Pink Flamingo has been telling you about Richard Viguerie. I’ve also been telling that Lindsey is probably the closest thing to Reagan we now have.  Unfortunately, one of the few people who truly gets this is Lindsey, himself.  Ergo – they (tea party freaks) hate him.  Then again, when one looks at the polls and only 30% of Republicans align themselves with the tea party, it looks like Lindsey is the one who is right!

“…We don’t have a lot of Reagan-type leaders in our party. Remember Ronald Reagan Democrats? I want a Republican that can attract Democrats.” Chortling, he added, “Ronald Reagan would have a hard time getting elected as a Republican today.”..”  Lindsey Graham

The same bunch who once referred to Reagan as a “useful idiot” is at it again.  This time their target is the whole GOP – or anyone who speaks ill of the tea party movement.  It doesn’t matter about the tea partier.  They can be libertarians, anti-reagan, con-artists, and even some other nasty affiliations.  Just doesn’t matter, as long as the politicians they target ape their every desire.

“…“…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…’…”

Richard Viguerie is at it again.  One of the main reasons The Pink Flamingo has so very little respect for the minions of the far right and the Tea Party “patriots” is because of people like Richard Viguerie.  He is now slamming Bob Inglis for telling the truth, and slamming the GOP, as usual.  Then again Viguerie was the first to fire slams at GWB when he was in office.  Conservatives have a tendency to look the other way and only point out the faults of people they don’t like. That’s one of their greatest failings.

“…In January 2008, Viguerie launched, a website designed to promote the 2008 presidential candidacy of U.S. Congressman Ron Paul, whom Viguerie described as “truly a principled conservative in the grand tradition of Robert Taft, Barry Goldwater, and Ronald Reagan” and who “has differentiated himself from all the other candidates, whose allegiance is to Big Government Republicanism…”

He is the ultimate political opportunist, a total and complete version of a conservative flim-flam artist.

Viguerie covers his con-artist tushie with the following:

“…When Republicans need support, they seek it from conservatives in the new and alternative media. How strange, if not cowardly and weak, for Inglis and his colleagues to claim they are “afraid” to speak out against those they use. Republicans like Inglis and Sen. Bob Bennett of Utah are passive-aggressive — until they are beaten in primaries.  Inglis is also quoted as wondering how Ronald Reagan “would fare today on Glenn Beck’s show. Glenn Beck would eat him up. Reagan the optimist.” For starters, Reagan brought us out of the second-worst American presidency, the Carter years. Inglis and his Republican colleagues brought us the single worst American president, Barack Obama. Conservatives like Bill Buckley, myself and others did criticize Reagan when he went astray. He didn’t like it.  Conservatives inside the White House would secretly tell us to keep it up. Reagan, they said, needed that criticism. It countered the influence of Don Regan, Jim Baker, Mike Deaver, George Schultz and other big-government Republicans in the White House, as well as the enormous desire to be liked by the Washington establishment — which is anti-conservative. Reagan got upset with us. But he never publicly berated his conservative base…. “

One of the reasons The Pink Flamingo thinks the far right is out of it’s mind is the way they get their “version” of history from Glenn Beck.  Perhaps they’d be better off going back and doing a little research for themselves. They have become the revisionists!

NY Times – January 17, 1988:

“…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.”…”

Viguerie, who is a con-artist supported by Sun Mung Moon, has a tendency to lie about the actual truth when it comes to the way he treated Reagan.

“…Frustrated by the New Right’s decline, Richard Viguerie became more sharply populist during the Reagan years, attacking Big Government, Big Labor, Big Business, and Big Media in a new book, The Establishment vs. the People. He charged that both the Democratic and Republican parties had “come to defend a privileged elite against the will and interests of the majority.” He faulted President Reagan for raising taxes, hiring “5,200 additional IRS agents,” and failing to veto “unnecessary” government spending. “Who will speak for the little guy?” Viguerie demanded. Writing in National Review, Viguerie claimed both Thomas Jefferson and William F. Buckley Jr. as inspirations for his anti-elitism, amusing Jefferson scholars and startling the patrician Buckley…

However, whichever way he tacked, Reagan often found himself being roundly criticized by leaders of the New Right, eager as always to find fault with a conservative for not being quite conservative enough. Richard Viguerie and others pointed out that regardless of Reagan’s successful battles to reduce income tax rates, the average American’s total tax payments had actually gone up in Reagan’s second year if you included increases in Social Security withholding. As for Reagan’s spending cuts, the New Rightists stressed, they were not absolute reductions but merely reductions in the rate of increase….

Outside his administration, Reagan could depend on the support of opinion molders like columnists George Will, Patrick J. Buchanan, William F. Buckley, Jr., James J. Kilpatrick, and John Chamberlain. Will and Buchanan would become major television commentators before the end of the decade; Buckley, it seemed, had always been a major TV presence. Reagan could rely for guidance on the analytical skills of the editors and writers of a wide range of journals like National Review, Human Events, The American Spectator, Commentary, The Public Interest, The National Interest, and the editorial pages of The Wall Street Journal….”

On Feb. 27, 1982 in the NY Times, Viguerie slammed Reagan.

“…“…But this week, with a full year of the Reagan Presidency behind them, several hundred delegates to the conference were bickering over the ideology of the new Administration, questioning some of the major Cabinet officers installed by the President and audibly suffering over the deficit. The Administration, anticipating some grumbling among the conservative purists, dispatched an impressive list of high executives to the Mayflower Hotel to address the three-day conference, which runs through tomorrow. They included Attorney General William French Smith, who brought the unity message to restive conservatives yesterday. ”It is healthy for us to have differences of opinion on many issues,” he said, ”but let us not loose sight of the basic point upon which we have no disagreement. The Reagan Administration represents our best hope of positive reform during the past two generations. That opportunity must not be lost.” … The Conservative Digest, a magazine edited by Richard A. Viguerie, the conservative fundraiser, today made public results of a poll among conference delegates that gave the President some low marks on specific issues, a B over all for domestic policy and a B minus for foreign policy. Delegates voting in the poll, about half the 350 attending sessions, designated Secretary of State Haig as the President’s worst Cabinet selection and Secretary of the Interior James G. Watt as his best. The Conservative Digest delegate poll gave the President a D on the issue of appointing ”non-Reaganites” to high office and a D-plus on failing to require a formal declaration of default on loans to Poland. His rating was C on balancing the budget and on exercising leadership on social issues. General Support, Some Criticism The organizations sponsoring the conference emphasized continuing conservative support for the President. ”The great majority of Young Americans for Freedom members are extremely supportive of the Administration,” observed Sam Pimm, the group’s executive director. Dan Todd, executive director of the American Conservative Union, said that Reagan critics were ”a small band of naysayers who have nothing to do but stand on the sidelines and boo.”…”…”