There's one problem I have with this commentary on the current Presidential election cycle. Romney waited and waited to give his speech on religion in America (not even really talking about his own religion bc it's deeply personal and he didn't feel it was his place as a presidential contender). Your criticism of Romney on religion is unfounded as he is not the candidate envoking his "Christianity" in ads and stumping in churches accross America so evangelicals like myself can feel good about him. That's Huckabee. Also, when did it become wrong to champion the conservative mindset that Reagan modernized? He's directly responsible for it, so why not give credit where credit is due, and say I'm going to do a lot of the same things (after all - it's what America needs)!
CAMPAIGN 2008
In the Name of the Father…
The 2008 presidential candidates are obsessed with who's more like Ronald Reagan, who's a better hunter and who's more religious. Can't anyone be their own man (or woman)?
Dec 29, 2007
-
Posted By: Joshluke2003 @ 12/29/2007 4:37:58 PM
-
Posted By: cyberella @ 01/07/2008 5:03:08 PM
Romney and Huck's religion?? I've not seen a member of either blow himself up. We raking the wrong candidate over the coals. Read Obama's books- filled with distain for the white race and admiration for Islam!
-
Posted By: steelwheel1 @ 12/29/2007 5:23:00 PM
You are wrong. Mitt Romney made it about his religion the moment he began pandering to the evangelicals. And he really did a very piss poor job of it by flipping on everything Reagan. We have Mitt on a ton of videos denouncing everything Reagan and lo and behold here he is accusing people of failing Reagan 101 and how he is the standard bearer for the party of Reagan.
So please, don't tell us Mitt is getting a bad rap. He is getting exactly what he deserves!
By the way, if his religion was so "private" why did he feel the need to cave in and give a speech about his religion if not for reasons of pandering??-
Posted By: Stuckem @ 12/31/2007 1:19:25 PM
Steelwheel is wrong....Romney has always claimed, as does the U.S. Constitution, no man should be "tested" for his religion when it comes to public office. He was relentlessly attacked by the media and by a whisper campaign by Huckabee. Open your eyes man. He and Thompson are the only true conservatives and I would vote for either one of them. And by the way...who cares what Reagan's liberal betraying daughter thinks anyway.
-
-
Posted By: steelwheel1 @ 12/29/2007 5:24:10 PM
You are wrong. Mitt Romney made it about his religion the moment he began pandering to the evangelicals. And he really did a very piss poor job of it by flipping on everything Reagan. We have Mitt on a ton of videos denouncing everything Reagan and lo and behold here he is accusing people of failing Reagan 101 and how he is the standard bearer for the party of Reagan.
So please, don't tell us Mitt is getting a bad rap. He is getting exactly what he deserves!
By the way, if his religion was so "private" why did he feel the need to cave in and give a speech about his religion if not for reasons of pandering?? -
Posted By: steelwheel1 @ 12/29/2007 5:23:18 PM
You are wrong. Mitt Romney made it about his religion the moment he began pandering to the evangelicals. And he really did a very piss poor job of it by flipping on everything Reagan. We have Mitt on a ton of videos denouncing everything Reagan and lo and behold here he is accusing people of failing Reagan 101 and how he is the standard bearer for the party of Reagan.
So please, don't tell us Mitt is getting a bad rap. He is getting exactly what he deserves!
By the way, if his religion was so "private" why did he feel the need to cave in and give a speech about his religion if not for reasons of pandering??
-
-
Posted By: Bob Mahnken @ 01/06/2008 2:18:51 PM
Gee, Nancy, that would be swell. Too bad your oh-so-private Daddy poisoned our national discourse by sucking up to Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson every time he got a chance. Really, honey: what the hell are you talking about?.
-
Posted By: ritaannie @ 01/05/2008 4:02:46 PM
Just a comment about the reference to Romney going on television re: his religion. In a way he was forced into doing this because instead of looking at his stand on issues, people were focusing on the fact that he's a "Mormon" and in many cases personally attacking him and the Mormon religion because of this. Otherwise, I doubt very much that he would have said anything about his particular church affiliation any more than Reagan or any other church-going president has said. Romney has never used his religion as a campaign tool.
-
Posted By: Grim_Reaper_24 @ 01/04/2008 2:36:17 PM
You know the funny thing is how many think that as once President you would not have to do any underhanded dealings to promote the American way of life. Many have not seen other countries and then proceed to complain about how horrible it is due to our current government. We by no means have it rough. Maybe Reagan did do some under the table things in dealing with world issues but others do and no matter what party the next one is they will. Reagan was a great leader. His successes outweighed his failures and America won a cold war and many other hot ones. I laugh at many who complain. Partisan politics will lose this war not a government system. At least Reagan and Bush have one thing in common...you fight a war for a long haul, for final victory. I just hope whoever wins is more like Reagan in that aspect. And before you think I am a Bush supporter or a Democrat...I choose free thinking...I am in Independant.
-
Posted By: Saltydog_0 @ 01/04/2008 3:19:55 PM
Do you really believe Bush fights "a war for a long haul, for final victory"? Come on now. Why has he rolled our most valuable intelligence assets out of Afghanistan over to Iraq? He actually replaced Arab speaking CIA agents who were hunting for Bin Laden with Spanish speaking South American specialists. Why? If the goal is to fight terrorism, wouldn't you send your most effective assets where the terrorists are located? Where did he send them instead? Where the oil is located. To a country with an infrastructure that could be bombed and then rebuilt by Haliburton.
I agree that he is in it for the long haul, but make no mistake, he is not in it for victory. He's in it to enrich his puppeteers. He and Cheney are trading the blood of our soldiers for increases in Haliburton (and other corporations) stock prices. Before this "war on terror" is over we will have spent well over a trillion dollars. Where is the money going? Contractors and weapons manufacturers. Do you think it is an accident that the "war on terror" has actually created more terrorists? Let's face it terrorists = profits. Why would our government divert our resources from where the terrorists are located (Afghanistan and Pakistan) and send them where there were no terrorists (Iraq)? Answer: Profit for the industrial military complex.
Gee! Not only have we spent a trillion dollars and still not managed to catch Bin Laden. We've actually created more Bin Ladens! Is our government really so inept?! I don't think so. I think they are extremely intelligent and capable. They just have a different goal than what's stated publicly. They say one thing and do the exact opposite; and get applauded for it!!!
Baaaahhh!!! I'm a good little sheep.
-
-
Posted By: Grim_Reaper_24 @ 01/04/2008 2:36:45 PM
Oh yeah, Patti Davis is a loon.
-
Posted By: Saltydog_0 @ 01/04/2008 2:12:22 PM
Quote from Jim Hightower:
". . .hilarious is the scramble by this year's GOP presidential contenders to one-up one another in their claims to be the new Reagan. This is a hoot, because if Reagan were running today, the ideologically correct voters who control the Republican primary elections would savage him for his record on practically every hot-button issue.
Start with abortion. As governor of California in 1967, Reagan the Conservative Icon signed a law allowing abortions six years before the U.S. Supreme Court legalized them in the Roe v. Wade decision. How about taxes? Reagan signed a billion-dollar tax increase in California and later signed several tax hikes as president. And, ooooo, looky here: In 1986, Reagan signed a national law giving amnesty to illegal immigrants. With stands like these, the beloved Gipper would be running behind Duncan Hunter in today's Republican race!"
Just goes to show what a bunch of sheep the republicans are. . .why think for yourself about the issues when you can just be an "dittohead".?
-
Posted By: frank rizzo @ 01/04/2008 1:34:10 PM
The Repubs should invoke Reagan's cocaine deals with the central American Countries, the gun and hostage trading with the middle easterns, the illegal document destructions, the saving and loan scandals by the Bushes, the one breasted wife.....
-
Posted By: LOUEMMEL @ 01/03/2008 10:42:11 AM
Well said Patti, I couldn't agree with you more
-
Posted By: LOUEMMEL @ 01/03/2008 10:40:37 AM
Well said - I agree with you to the fullest - Louemmel@1/03/2008
-
Posted By: carnabylane @ 01/03/2008 8:57:54 AM
Reagan and his administration were as corrupt as the current one.
-
Posted By: sean2002 @ 01/02/2008 9:07:10 PM
Sorry, Ms. Davis, once your father becomes a public figure, people have rights to use him as references or refer to him. And this will continue in the future generations. Don't we often hear politicians referring historical figures, as ancient as Jefferson, Washington, as recent as JFK and Martin Luther King? You are your father's daughter, but that doesn't mean you own your father or his legacy. This is called democracy.
-
Posted By: jojoc10 @ 01/02/2008 1:26:19 PM
Tina H: I don't believe that Mrs Davis is advocating or not for her father. Her argument is that the candidates (both Republicans and Democrats) need to be original and stop comparing themselves or trying to imitate men of the past. Secondly, she would like it to be more about the issues and less about "public perception," or trying to prove oneself in the eyes of interest groups (i.e. NRA and gun rights groups).
-
Posted By: Shemp99 @ 01/02/2008 7:56:12 PM
Yeah. I would like to respond to jojoc10's comment with regard to Patti Davis. I don't care whether you love her or hate her, the point is is that some of her most ardent detractors are so busying trying to crucify her Pontius Pilate-style, that they don't bother to read her entire column because of some petty animosity on their part because of whatever discretion she may have done in her youth. What is the point of this? This kind of pettiness and tired lecturing only holds America back and is done with people who have too much time on their hands and, to quote Jack Nicholson (pardon me for invoking Nicholson - ha ha), "Can't Handle The Truth". This kind of behavior and corruption doesn't serve anyone in the end.
-
-
Posted By: Shemp99 @ 01/02/2008 6:08:14 PM
Yeah, I would just like to thank Patti Davis for stating what I've thought all along. I'm 36 years old and grew up during Ronald Reagan's presidency. The current state of political discourse is disgraceful, with everyone saying that the liberals are evil this, conservatives are evil that. Give me a break. This is just plain laziness. No one, Democrat or Republican alike, has the guts to be their own person anymore, because they're so busy invoking other people's names. I didn't agree with everything that Reagan believed or did, but I think he is a decent human being. These stupid contests are making a mockery of our political system, and I'm not going to take it anymore.
-
Posted By: Saltydog_0 @ 01/02/2008 5:19:36 PM
Patti's observances are absolutely correct, but pretty damn pedestrian. Candidates are pandering to the lowest common denominator by posing as good ole boy hunters? NO! They would never sink so low. Say it isn't so. They're pimping themselves as the next Reagan or Kennedy? I don't believe it!!! They have way to much integrity to do such things! Claiming to be the torchbearer for God himself? Come on now!! No way, no how!!
Duh. . .it's called politics. It's nothing new. Democrats do it. Repuclicans do it. Patti's daddy did it. It's hardly shocking or newsworthy.
They all do it and they do it for a reason. It works!! If you want to get elected, you MUST appeal to the lowest common denominator. It's unfortunate, but appealing to reason, intelligence and pragmatism puts people to sleep. Nobody worthwhile will ever make it in politics.
To misquote Men in Black: "A person is smart, but people are stupid. And you know it!"
-
Posted By: Maine CPA @ 01/02/2008 3:46:47 PM
Candidates to Patti: ...........SHUT UP
-
Posted By: Maine CPA @ 01/02/2008 3:46:01 PM
Candidates to Patti:........SHUT UP
-
Posted By: awynative @ 01/01/2008 11:29:39 PM
Bravo, Miss Davis! It is really scary to think that voters in Iowa are going to fall for the candidate who best plays up the nostalgic homage to your dad.
-
Posted By: lochner @ 01/01/2008 6:19:37 PM
If you live long enough, even Patti Davis grows up.
-
Posted By: lochner @ 01/01/2008 6:18:50 PM
If we live long enough, even Patti Davis grows up.
-
Posted By: chillfour@yahoo.com @ 01/01/2008 1:37:10 PM
Reagan wasn't all that swell. Looking back he started a lot of the wrong things that the republicans have done. By that I mean, thinking only of the richest, and screw the rest of the people. At least Reagan was a really friendly and popular man unlike GWB. Bush is unpopular and a snake is more friendly and caring.
Report Abuse
Enter comments if any for reporting abuse
- This one is for The Boss Joe Girardi on the Yankees’ 27th World Series titleNYDN
- We want our Taliban brothers and all others to come back and join with us President KarzaiAP
- It’s a detriment to democracy NY GOP official on conservatives rejecting their candidateNYT
- I did it with a lot of pain. Abdullah, on quitting the Afghan runoff NYT
- Somewhere these people have to be hidden out Clinton on Al Qaeda strongholds in PakistanAP
Discuss