Ronald Reagan Unearthed

[dales]

The San Diego Union Tribune is so unhappy with the prospect of Donald Trump as president, the editorial board on Thursday encouraged its readers to write in Ronald Reagan — yes, the former president who is no longer alive.

The editorial begins by saying that while Trump has captured the majority of the Republican party “there are so many ways Trump is unfit to lead the free world.”

The newspaper points to Trump’s criticism of U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel’s heritage. Curiel is the judge in charge of a lawsuit over Trump University and Trump has accused him of being biased because he is of Mexican descent (Curiel was born in the United States.)

“We believe in a more unifying message,” the board writes.


“So what do Republicans who don’t accept Trump’s style or substance — including all three Bushes, Mitt Romney, Ted Cruz, John Kasich, George Will and Charles Krauthammer — do? Certainly, the Republican Party has an argument for the presidency. Today, the principles of the party of Ronald Reagan are as relevant as ever: a stable border, a strong military and economic policy focused on low taxes, less bureaucracy and limited regulation.

Those are not the principles of Trump, who promises to build a border wall, recommends torture and killing terrorists’ families and speculates about reneging on our debts. What would happen to Reagan’s party in the hands of Trump? What would happen to San Diego?”



The editorial board says that Trump “doesn’t deserve the party’s mandate” and encourages voters to write in Reagan’s name on the June 7 primary ballot instead.

“Maybe Trump will get the message,” the board writes.

The editorial comes the same day The Washington Post editorial board wrote a scathing editorial after House Speaker Paul Ryan announced he would support Donald Trump, after all. The editorial titled "Mr. Ryan's endorsement of Trump is sad day for the GOP — and America."

"On Thursday Mr. Ryan capitulated to ugliness. It was a sad day for the speaker, for his party and for all Americans who hoped that some Republican leaders would have the fortitude to put principle over partisanship, job security or the forlorn fantasy that Mr. Trump will advance a traditional GOP agenda," the board wrote.

[Lord Jim]

Sounds like The San Diego Union is my kinda paper...

I believe that Kasich is still going to be on the primary ballot; I plan to vote for him....

[MajGenl.Meade]

I plan to vote for Kasich if I can get an absentee ballot and write him in

I will not vote for Her Clintoneness. One doesn't betray principles just because things might get uncomfortable.

[Lord Jim]

I plan to vote for Kasich if I can get an absentee ballot and write him in

I will not vote for Her Clintoneness. One doesn't betray principles just because things might get uncomfortable.

As I said before, I think that's a perfectly legitimate position to take...

I have a number of Republican friends who won't vote for Trump but can't bring themselves to vote for Hillary, who plan to cast a protest vote of one kind or another...

The reason I'm going further than that is because of the way I view Donald Trump as a uniquely toxic threat to the well being of the Republic, (and the party) and I think it's important not just that he be defeated, but that be defeated in a massive landslide...

I recognize the danger that this represents in terms of Clinton interpreting such a vote as some sort of "mandate" for her but my hope is that the GOP will retain control of at least one branch of the congress (preferably both) to serve as check on her over-reaching...

I believe that's critically important...

I think my decision is equally legitimate. I reached it after a lot of soul searching, and I certainly don't view it as a "betrayal of principle".

I don't feel at all good about it. It would be easier for me psychologically to cast a protest vote or not vote for President at all. But as I view it, my principles require that I take this step, even though it is painful...

I would have voted for an Independent Republican candidate if the Never Trump people had managed to persuade someone to run who at least had sufficient credibility and ability to raise money and get on ballots to create at least some sort of outside chance that they could ultimately prevail. (As I said yesterday, I'd have even voted for Romney even though I wasn't even all that crazy about him four years ago.)

I wouldn't have viewed a vote like that as a pure protest; the intent of the vote would have been to try to create a positive outcome, not just to simply avoid voting for either of the major party nominees...

But that didn't happen. They've got a guy who they may be able to talk into running, but while he seems like an earnest and worthwhile fellow, he doesn't meet any of the three criteria that I consider essential, and there is no even remotely conceivable scenario under which he could prevail...

I was willing to go with a long shot, but I'm not going to support a no shot...

For me the paramount consideration is the defeat of Donald Trump. That tops every other consideration. And his defeat by the largest possible margin will send a valuable signal to the rest of the world, and also help assure that my party never nominates anyone like this ever again....

[MajGenl.Meade]

... just every 52 years, eh?

[Lord Jim]

Well, Barry Goldwater came across with a very abrasive and strident demeanor in '64 and he certainly had a penchant for saying unfortunate things. But whether you agreed with him or disagreed with him, no one could argue that he wasn't a man of principle...

Donald Trump has absolutely no principles. The one an only thing he believes with sincerity is that he is the greatest human being to ever walk the earth...

[MajGenl.Meade]

You give Trump too much credit.... "sincerity" indeed!

Point, re Goldwater. He was a good sport on Dean Martin Roasts as well.

[Lord Jim]

I had occasion to meet Barry a couple of times at National Pres Club events when I was in High School in the 70s...I found him to be a warm and likable guy with a good sense of humor...

One time was at a Chili Cook Off Contest, where he was one of the participants...

I think he'd had a couple cocktails and he was acting kind of flirtatious with my girlfriend...

Nothing serious, completely harmless.. we both thought it was kind of funny....

[rubato]

"...

The editorial begins by saying that while Trump has captured the majority of the Republican party “there are so many ways Trump is unfit to lead the free world.”

... "

The choice of a majority of the Republican party has been unfit since Nixon. You sucked up to the meanest, most ignorant, most hateful people in the country, got them to vote for you, and then gradually they remade the rest of you in their image. Because you sucked up to them for votes. And now your party leaders in the House and Senate have both demasculated themselves like McCain did.

George Wallace grew a set of balls and repudiated them. Pity the rest of you never did.

Goldwater took the moral low road and sucked up to the southern strategy.

yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

The choice of a majority of the Republican party blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

yrs,
rubeshillo

[rubato]

Reagan was elected only because of the same people who support Trump today.


Embarrassing now, embarrassing then too.



yrs,
rubato

[MajGenl.Meade]

Oh that can't be right. Aren't all those people dead?

I have relatives who are no longer "friends" with me on FB (their loss) because I challenge pro-Trump posts with facts. They didn't vote for Reagan - weren't old enough or interested enough. I look at typical Trump crowds and I don't see Reaganite repubs in anything like the numbers of younger hicks.

[Lord Jim]

Gee whiz, rube is talking out his ass...

That certainly makes for a change...

About the only subject rube knows less about then politics is religion...

Actually though it's probably a four way tie for second between politics, history, economics and philosophy...

[Gob]

Gee whiz, rube is talking out his ass...

That certainly makes for a change...

About the only subject rube knows less about then politics is religion...

Actually though it's probably a four way tie for second between politics, history, economics and philosophy...

and international politics.

[Bicycle Bill]

The San Diego Union Tribune is so unhappy with the prospect of Donald Trump as president, the editorial board on Thursday encouraged its readers to write in Ronald Reagan — yes, the former president who is no longer alive.

A dead Reagan is better than a live Trump.

-"BB"-

[liberty]

If you remember Reagan was just a crazy old man that was going start world war III and kill us all, but he didn’t. Instead he started the process that killed communism and save the world from slavery not that liberals would ever give him credit for it.

[MajGenl.Meade]

... me either. There was no "process" that killed communism. Any good Marxist can give you an analysis of why the Soviet Union failed in that particular experiment. Perhaps even a Hegelian could do it. Given that all systems are flawed and some more flawed than others, each carries within it the seeds of its own destruction. Rise and fall is inevitable; expansion is not infinitely supportable; things change and stuff happens.

[Lord Jim]

things change and stuff happens.

Yeah, and the "stuff" that happened to the Soviet Union was named Ronald Wilson Reagan...

not that liberals would ever give him credit for it.

That's not true of all liberals, lib...some have made a grudging acceptance of the facts...

However, it certainly appears to be true of all the liberals on this board...

[MajGenl.Meade]

Oh baloney! (Bologna?)

Reagan had as much to do with the fall of the USSR as did Leonard Cohen - perhaps less. That collapse was inevitable given the objective circumstances of USSR policy, politics and capability. That the USA maintained a stand against "communism" was a lot better than capitulation but that predated Reagan. The real "hero" if we must have one was Gorbachev and his realisation that the Russian economy was failing and a totally new approach was needed.

[Lord Jim]

The real "hero" if we must have one was Gorbachev

Yeah, let's give the trophy to the losing coach... (though in fairness, since you are a fan of Cleveland sports franchises, I can certainly see why you would find that approach appealing... )

Gorbachev made a mistake that tyrants frequently make...

He thought that if he gave his people a little freedom they'd be grateful...

But instead he awakened a yearning for more...

He was a bungling incompetent, who thought he could make communism "work better"; he certainly never had any intention of seeing the Soviet Union unravel...

He vastly over-estimated his abilities, over estimated the durability of the system he was put in charge of, under estimated his people, and badly under-estimated Ronald Reagan...

And the only reason the Old Guard in the Kremlin had installed him as Secretary General of the CPSU in the first place was because Reagan had convinced them through his defense build up and strengthening of the NATO alliance, that the US wasn't going into decline, and it was time to try to make a deal...(since they couldn't possibly out compete or prevail over a determined United States)

So they picked a guy who they thought would be a clever deal maker, who instead turned out to be a lousy one...

And a guy who also turned out to be so inept that he wound up presiding over the disintegration of his country ...

Yeah, a real sharpy that one...