Search the ArchivesNavigation Contact InformationThe Citizen Newspapers For Advertising Information Email us your news! For technical difficulties |
McCain vs. Romney vs. Reagan I have to admit that I am somewhat confused by the consternation in the Republican Party over the imminent nomination of John McCain. I understand that the Republican Party here in Georgia is so far to the right as to relegate itself to extreme fringe as exemplified by the frequent claim I hear that President George Bush, the head of the national Republican Party, is “not a conservative”. But after the election next Tuesday, when the local party votes itself into national irrelevancy by supporting Huckabee and Romney, I expect the hue and cry to intensify to unparalleled levels. In fact, I am expecting to see half the town in sackcloth and ashes and am bracing for reports of isolated self-immolation. Perhaps someone on the most extreme right-wing fringe of the party, someone on the truly politically reactionary edge, someone like local centrist Richard Hobbs maybe; could explain the conundrum of the McCain vs. Romney vs. Reagan argument. It seems to me that, although there are many, many issues in any campaign, in reality (and I hope that concept doesn’t derail you before we get started RH) there are but a few defining issues for Republicans. In this election, they seem to be Iraq, immigration, and taxes. Romney, as John McCain has pointed out, supports setting timetables for withdrawal from Iraq. (I am willing to change that to “supported setting timetables” because, as with almost every issue, Romney has had at least two positions and it’s hard for a bystander to keep up with which one is current. I accept either.) Romney, of course denies the timetable issue even though on ABC News, he said: "Well, there's no question that the president and Prime Minister al Maliki have to have a series of timetables and milestones that they speak about, but those shouldn't be for public pronouncement." Romney Embraces Private Iraq Timetables It may be that because ABC is part of the MSM it is not relevant but I think we will all agree that Mitt’s current position (unless he has changed it this morning) is that he does not support timetables. This seems to mesh well with McCain’s position of being willing to stay in Iraq for a hundred years. What would Reagan’s position be? Well, in 1984 when truck bombs driven by suicide bombers hit the U.S. Marine and French Paratrooper barracks in Beirut, killing 241 American Marines and 58 French soldiers, Reagan’s position was to cut and run. In fact, Reagan’s policy closely resembles Hillary Clinton’s position, out of all the major candidates. But limiting the discussion to the Republicans, at the time of the abandonment of Lebanon by Reagan it seems that John McCain supported Reagan. I could only find this clip from McCain at the time: At the end of the clip, McCain draws connections between the situation there and in Lebanon: “The tragedy in Beirut: 240 young Marines lost their lives, but we got out. Now is the time for us to get out of Somalia, as rapidly, and as promptly, and as safely as possible.” Seems like Reagan supported Hillary’s position, but since at the time McCain supported Reagan while Mitt was mute, I’ve got to come down on the side of McCain’s position being closer to Reagan’s. In any case, it’s a stretch because I do not know anybody who thinks Reagan would have led us into Iraq; the definitive act of the current Republican Party. So how about taxes? Reagan ran for Governor on the promise of tax cuts as do all Republicans. Unfortunately, instead of the promised tax cut, he imposed the biggest tax increase in California history. In fact, according to the Sacramento bee, “California's new Republican governor, Ronald Reagan, had just called for, and signed, the biggest tax increase in the history of any state.” Again Reagan’s position is closely aligned with Hillary Clinton’s. Reagan then went on as President to implement the two largest tax increases in the history of the United States and shifted the payroll tax portion from 9.5% in 1980 to 11.8% in 1988 thereby increasing the tax on the middle-class. Of course these tax increases were in reaction to the enormous deficits. On the other hand, according to the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, which tracks state finances, Romney raised roughly $740 million to $750 million per year by increasing fees and corporate taxes gained from what the Romney administration describes as “closing loopholes.” Since shifting taxes to the middle-class and huge, gigantic, enormous deficits are the hallmarks of the Republican Party regardless of the candidate and since McCain supported Reagan, and since Mitt’s increases were in “fees”, I have to come down on the side of McCain being closer to Reagan than Mitt. Although since Reagan was actually closer to Hillary, I admit this is hair-splitting. The clearest distinction seems to be on immigration. Although no less an authority that FoxNews has accused Mitt of supporting sanctuary cities: Mitt Romney's Sanctuary Cities The fact today seems to be that the breeze has shifted and along with it so has Romney’s position. As of noon today, Romney wants to round up the immigrants and send them back. The fact that this is impossible is totally irrelevant. The fact that Reagan’s position is closely aligned again with Hillary Clinton’s position is also irrelevant. Reagan’s Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 granted outright amnesty to illegal aliens: (I hope my linking to such a questionable source as the New York Times is mitigated by the fact that the article was written by Edwin Meese III). Here it is clear. McCain’s position is light-years closer to Reagan’s than is Mitt Romney’s. If you don’t agree with me, we can ask a specialist in the field like Juan Hernandez to settle it for us. So there it is. Longer that I had planned, sorry. But it seems clear that today’s Republicans are much, much further from Reagan than Reagan was from Hillary Clinton’s positions. But it is also clear that McCain is and was much closer to Reagan than Romney (in his current configuration as of today). So why all the wailing and gnashing of teeth? JeffC's blog | login to post comments
|
Copyright 2010 - Fayette Publishing, Inc. | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use Policy
Server 4
