The left has its Reagan. Where’s ours?
By Ken Falkenstein | Sunday, December 18th, 2011 | Catch-All, Politics
The hallmark traits of Ronald Reagan were that he spent his entire life consistently advocating his heartfelt conservative convictions. His ability to communicate those ideas in compelling ways, even when those ideas were out of fashion with the sentiments of the country, propelled this movie actor to the White House. As president, Reagan occasionally compromised as the situation warranted, but he never took his eyes off of his objective of implementing conservative policies wherever possible both at home and abroad. And he had remarkable success in doing so.
The hallmark traits of Barack Obama are that he has spent his entire life consistently advocating his heartfelt leftist convictions. His ability to communicate those ideas in compelling ways, even though those ideas are out of fashion with the sentiments of the country, propelled this community organizer to the White House. As president, Obama occasionally has compromised as the situation warranted, but he has never taken his eyes off of his objective of implementing leftist policies wherever possible both at home and abroad. And he has had remarkable success in doing so.
So, the left has its Reagan. They have a president who is a reliable leftist who can be counted on the fight for the Democrat Party’s leftist principles and to passionately advocate them at home and abroad.
Where is our Reagan?
It’s not Newt Gingrich, who sat in a loveseat with the most radical leftist House Speaker in history to advocate the cornerstone policy objective of the leftist movement, using the myth of global warming as a pretext for imposing a statist anticapitalist agenda. And even if Gingrich hadn’t done that, he has a history of taking positions that are so zany that even mainstream conservatives lose faith in him. This week, for me, that moment came when Gingrich announced that as president he would ignore Supreme Court rulings with which he disagreed. Such Nixonian contempt for constitutional separation of powers disqualifies Gingrich for the presidency.
It’s not Michelle Bachmann, who can’t get her facts straight, can’t speak without using bumper sticker clichés, and, in any event, has no executive experience to qualify her for the presidency.
It’s not Rick Perry, who can’t string five words into a coherent sentence and who thinks Christian evangelism is a prerequisite for the presidency.
And it is not Mitt Romney, whose “evolution” in his principles has conveniently corresponded to the precise message that was the most appealing to the voters in any given election. A man with his finger paralyzed in the wind cannot be depended on to take the bold and courageous actions that the country now needs to repair the enormous damage done by Barack Obama and his movement leftists in Congress.
Some may say that the candidate I’m seeking is an ideal that does not exist in the real world. They would be wrong.
I’m not seeking a perfect candidate or one who would never compromise. I am seeking the candidate who can win the election and be trusted to fight with every fiber of his being to govern based on conservative principles to the maximum extent practicable. And there are such people out there.
Obviously, Reagan was one of them. Today, there is Mitch Daniels, Bob McDonnell, Haley Barbour, Bobby Jindal, John Thune, and Jim DeMint, just to name a few. But all of them declined to run.
I recently wrote that it is not too late for another top-tier candidate to get into this race and win. For the sake of our country, I hope that candidate is listening.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Ken Falkenstein has been a staffer in the United States Senate and the Virginia House of Delegates. He has managed political campaigns. He was a military intelligence analyst in the U.S. Army in West Germany during the Cold War. He is currently a civil litigation attorney with Poole Mahoney, P.C. in Virginia Beach. But his concern for his kids' future is what most informs his writing.
We're 75% there! Thank you to everyone who has so far contributed! Just $2000 to go!
Comments
29 Responses to "The left has its Reagan. Where’s ours?"
[...] Excerpted Recommended CHRISTIAN OUTREACH Article FROM http://bearingdrift.com/2011/12/18/the-left-has-its-reagan-wheres-ours/ [...]
Jon Huntsman? Conservative (#1 Job creator in Utah, #1 in Tax Policy by the Cato Institute), willing to compromise as the situation demands it (Only GOPer to support the Debt Ceiling deal as flawed but necessary to avert destruction.) Has stood up for individual right not only here but abroad to, speaking for dissidents in China as Ambassador.
Some grammar errors:
“has stood up for individual rightS not only here, but abroad toO”
Santorum is just as principled as those guys. Had he not lost in a blue state in the toughest year, then you’d be praising him. But he still has a great chance.
Huntsmans foreign policy is conservative my ass. He is an interventionist like the rest of em. Where do we draw the line folks?
Santorum or Huntsman would be interesting to hear more from.
Amen, Ken, esp. on Reich Fuehrer Bachmann. Today on MTP she hijacked Newt’s lame-brained attack on the Federal judiciary and ran with it like a dog with a bone. She is too stupid to even plagiarize only good ideas.
However, there is a reason why your candidates aren’t running: Obama is an incumbent President and if they wait until 2016 they won’t have that obstacle to overcome. This includes Christie. IMHO, this is why the Republican field has been such a freak show this year–the serious candidates are cowardly waiting out an incumbent Democrat and leaving the nomination to the silly candidates, like Newt and Ron Paul. That doesn’t speak highly of the moral courage of the Republican leadership, does it?
Rocky- Kindly refrain from making Nazi references to American politicians of either party – especially while hiding behind the mask of a pseudonym. Although I am neither a supporter nor fan of Michelle Bachmann, I can say unequivocally that her conservative views are the antithesis of those of the genocidal socialist who murdered 6,000,000 of my people.
Ken,
Your point is well-taken. I have inadvertently invoked Godwin’s Law. However, I take issue with the “hiding behind the mask of a pseudonym” snark. I have explained on this blog before that, unlike those of you who are in politics for a living, I am in a rather sensitive career in which strong political opinions can be damaging to your reputation. I have said this before and I will say it again: Bearing Drift contributors have posted here “behind the mask of a pseudonym” and this blog allows anonymous comments. Take one position or the other: either allow anonymous comments without criticism or ban anonymous comments. You can’t have it both ways. I can live with either policy, but just make up your minds.
Santorum is the obvious dark horse candidate if the Repubs are so inclined. He is the only one other than Romney who won a statewide Blue state race. Huntsman presents no advantage over Romney. He is a rich man’s son and unlike Romney has not been a brilliant businessman in his own right. Fairly or unfairly Huntsman is the John Kerry look (and act) alike for the Repubs.
BTW Ken thanks for the comment on Bachmann.
Rocky says That doesn’t speak highly of the moral courage of the Republican leadership, does it?
No it doesn’t. I’ve had the same gripe. But of course the Dems did the same thing in 1992, letting a nobody like Bill Clinton make a futile run against an incumbent President.
Good point Rocky.
I guess I should be worrying more about my “career”. Maybe then I’d have a better reputation.
Ken,
One more thing. The 6 million people murdered in The Holocaust were not “your” people. They were “our” people. The Holocaust was an affront to all humanity, not just the Jews. And I am certain that you are aware that other “untermenschen,” such as Roman Catholics, were also massacred during The Holocaust, most notably at Dachau. That is why there is The Holocaust Museum in Washington on 14th Street next to the Smithsonian.
We’re looking into a complete revamp of the comments. Those of you who post anonymously will probably not like it.
valentinus,
That’s a great point about Clinton. What the Democrats in 1992 didn’t take into consideration was the appearance of a malignant dwarf with a cheap haircut named Ross Perot who took almost 19% of the popular vote, mostly from Bush 41, allowing Slick Willy to slide into the White House with only 43%. Without Perot in the race, it probably would have been closer to 55-45 in favor of Bush and no one would have ever heard of Monica Lewinsky. Politics is funny that way, isn’t it?
Jim,
As I said to Ken, I can live with whatever policy BD decides to adopt on both contributors and commenters. Just don’t allow anonymous comments and then berate us as if it is somehow dishonest.
Rocky- I didn’t berate you or call you dishonest. I stated that I disapprove of those who berate others while hiding behind the mask of a pseudonym, especially when that person goes so far as to compare a presidential candidate to one of the most horrific monsters in all of human history. I stand by my comment.
Ken,
I am sure that Michele Bachmann is mortified that a guy posting as “Rocky” on a Virginia politics blog compared her with Hitler and that it would have been sooooooo much better if I had made that comment using my real name. No, you didn’t berate me or call me dishonest. You simply disapproved of me. Exactly what is the difference?
I normally greatly appreciate your postings here, as you know, and I admitted that using a Nazi analogy was not appropriate. But, I stand by my comment: it is hypocritical for Bearing Drift to allow both contributors and commenters to post anonymously and then attempt to discredit anonymous comments that they don’t like only because the comment is posted under a pseudonym. That treads very close to the dweebs over at Smurf Virginia who ban anyone they don’t agree with. It is only a matter of degree, not basic principle.
M.D.- I acknowledge and appreciate that you drew back your original comment. I was merely explaining why I thought your anonymity mattered in that context. And, btw, I’m just a contributor to BD. I don’t speak for the entire site or make editorial policy. I speak for myself.
Ken,
Bullshit. You attempted to discount my comment by using a back-stabbing reference to my pseudonym. Take issue all you want with what I post, but don’t take cheap shots below the belt.
But we can still be friends as long as we can have these conversations. And I look forward to BD ending all pseudonyms.
I’ll let people read my original comment and form their own conclusions.
Ken,
Fine. And I will let people read my original response to you at 14:00 pm and form their own conclusions.
Best regards.
Does “M.D.” stand for Mogan David?
[...] other contributors in the comments here on Bearing Drift, but after reading Ken Falkenstein’s post and drafting a response that was way too long for the comments, I chose to turn this into a [...]
There aren’t many folks on the left who would consider Barack Obama to be the Democrats’ Ronald Reagan. At least, not now. Maybe in twenty years.
Timmy,
No, it is my initials and also stands for my Army nickname, Mad Dog. Stop “hiding behind the mask of a pseudonym” or you can go piss up a rope as well, bozo.
Gunnery Sergeant Hartman: Mad Dog, why did you join my beloved Corps (Army)?
Mad Dog: Sir, to kill, sir!
Gunnery Sergeant Hartman: So you’re a killer?
Mad Dog: Sir, yes sir!
Gunnery Sergeant Hartman: Then let me see your war face!
Mad Dog: [nervously] Sir?
Gunnery Sergeant Hartman: You got a war face! AAAAAAAAHH! That’s a war face, let me see your war face!
Mad Dog: Ahhhh!
Gunnery Sergeant Hartman: Bullshit. You didn’t convince me. let me see your REAL war face!
Mad Dog: [Screaming] AHHHHHHHHHHH!
Gunnery Sergeant Hartman: You don’t scare me! Work on it!
Mad Dog: Sir, yes sir!
Remember this kids, there is no such thing as anonymity on the web. Ever. If folks want to find out precisely who you are, it can be done.
I hide behind my pseudonym on purpose. I often make very pointed statements of opinion. I have a nephew who is named after me. When he applies for a job, and his employer searches his name and something I said comes up? I would hate for it if he loses opportunity because of something I said. Crucify me, do not crucify him.
Federal judges should be called in for their rulings. Heck, most other federal agencies, why not federal judges?
Brian,
Barrack Obama is passing exactly what the left wants. Of course, he is the fourth best president of all time, behind Lincoln, FDR and Johnson. He is the left’s Ronald Reagan.
Leave your response