Is Romney the next Reagan?

[Joe Biden is your president. Deal with it.]

Some GOP dudes fap over the idea that Mittens is really Reagan part 2. lol all i have to say Romney Is NO Reagan.

[RogueBeaver]

I haven't heard anyone say that apart from Politico. IMO, most certainly not.

[Maxwell]

Ronald Reagan isn't the perfect president that a lot of other Republicans say he is, but Romney makes Ronald Reagan look like Milton Friedman by comparison.

[old timey villain]

Ronald Reagan isn't the perfect president that a lot of other Republicans say he is, but Romney makes Ronald Reagan look like Milton Friedman by comparison.

I was born right as Reagan was leaving office, so I could be wrong, but haven't Reagan and his presidency kind of been unnecessarily canonized?

From what I've read and researched, Reagan was very much style over substance. He gave great speeches, inspired people during tough times, and had an impressive wit, but it seems he was mainly an affable face that represented a movement far greater than him. I've heard he really wasn't incredibly intelligent and could be somewhat bumbling at times, but had a very protective inner circle that maintained his public image. And of course a lot of the legislation he signed into law back then would be reviled by the current GOP, like amnesty.

And it seems like he gets too much credit for his landslide victories. He might have just benefited from a depolarization that favored Republicans. I mean, Clinton had higher approvals than Reagan when he won reelection, but didn't win by as much. Does that really mean people loved Reagan more?

[old timey villain]

But to be fair, I think he was a great guy and I might have been convinced to vote for him, based purely on his wit and affability. I love this clip.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRUbwnkEPqc&feature=related

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

But to be fair, I think he was a great guy and I might have been convinced to vote for him, based purely on his wit and affability. I love this clip.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRUbwnkEPqc&feature=related

I would've voted for him twice and Bush 41 the first time.

[Ty440]

Ive read about Ronald Reagan, Ive studied Ronald Reagan, Ive watched Ronald Reagan.

Mitt Romney you are no Ronald Reagan.

[Maxwell]

Ronald Reagan isn't the perfect president that a lot of other Republicans say he is, but Romney makes Ronald Reagan look like Milton Friedman by comparison.

I was born right as Reagan was leaving office, so I could be wrong, but haven't Reagan and his presidency kind of been unnecessarily canonized?

From what I've read and researched, Reagan was very much style over substance. He gave great speeches, inspired people during tough times, and had an impressive wit, but it seems he was mainly an affable face that represented a movement far greater than him. I've heard he really wasn't incredibly intelligent and could be somewhat bumbling at times, but had a very protective inner circle that maintained his public image. And of course a lot of the legislation he signed into law back then would be reviled by the current GOP, like amnesty.

And it seems like he gets too much credit for his landslide victories. He might have just benefited from a depolarization that favored Republicans. I mean, Clinton had higher approvals than Reagan when he won reelection, but didn't win by as much. Does that really mean people loved Reagan more?

Reagan's presidency is very flawed: Everything about his presidency, from economic policy, foreign policy, had its ups and downs. However, the pluses are better than most, if not all, other recent Republican presidents. I agree he wasn't what people say he is because he was more style than substance, but during the Reagan presidency 16 million jobs were created, taxes were lowered, and in some cases, the world was better due to a weakened Soviet Union. The cost? ballooned deficit, Iran-Contra, Star Wars spending, a policy on Illegal Immigrants that doesn't fix the problem, just pushes it back, and the Christian Authoritarian Right.

Just like Reagan, Romney won't fight wholeheartedly for free markets, but at least Reagan, in some cases, tried. Romney can't even do that.

[You kip if you want to...]

It's like in 2008 when they were saying that Sarah Palin's the next Margaret Thatcher.

[Adam Griffin]

Reagan's presidency is very flawed: Everything about his presidency, from economic policy, foreign policy, had its ups and downs. However, the pluses are better than most, if not all, other recent Republican presidents.

This. Republicans have no modern success stories when it comes to Presidents. Out of the three over the past thirty years, one was a one-term flip-flopper when it came to the issue of taxation, while the other nearly destroyed the country. If they threw Reagan under the bus like the others (and I think there could be a case made for doing so - even more than the other two), then who would they idolize?

[Oakvale]

Wasn't Reagan's whole appeal that he had, you know, charisma?

[Torie]

LOL. Mittens and Dutch are two very different people.  I must admit however I was never quite as enthralled with The Gipper as most of my team. But even if he could not connect with me very well, he connected where it counted. If Mittens just came out of the closet (politically speaking I hasten to add), he would connect much better with me, than Reagan ever did. If. Keep hope alive.

[5280]

I've noticed Romney started to comb his hair like Reagan.  Wanted to point that out.

[Maxwell]

I've noticed Romney started to comb his hair like Reagan.  Wanted to point that out.

Probably why the connection is coming up.

[J. J.]

In terms of the debate, Romney's style was not as strong as Reagan.  In terms of substance, they were equal.  Romney successfully articulated what he wanted to do.

[wan]

one of reagans sons said romney is nothing like my father.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The last time the Democrats won in a landslide was when President Kennedy died. Republicans in that time have had Eisenhower, Nixon, and Reagan. Clearly Republicans have been more successful than Democrats.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The last time the Democrats won in a landslide was when President Kennedy died. Republicans in that time have had Eisenhower, Nixon, and Reagan. Clearly Republicans have been more successful than Democrats.

There's a difference between success at getting elected and success at governing or strengthening the country.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Reagan without charisma and with a manic look on his face?

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

True, one is an empirical measure, and one is not. I'm sure it's easy enough for Democrats to argue that no republican ever has been a success at governing, but that isn't reliable information. What is reliable is that Eisenhower, Nixon, and Reagan managed to win over large proportions of Americans.

Democrats are still referring to Nixon as if he were the great satan. Surely, that is not a measure of success? If Nixon were ineffectual, then he would not be so vilified by his enemies. Like him or not, his policies have dominated America. I would say that the only politician who has had more of an effect is FDR, and he had 4 terms.

[Oakvale]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

True, one is an empirical measure, and one is not. I'm sure it's easy enough for Democrats to argue that no republican ever has been a success at governing, but that isn't reliable information. What is reliable is that Eisenhower, Nixon, and Reagan managed to win over large proportions of Americans.

Democrats are still referring to Nixon as if he were the great satan. Surely, that is not a measure of success? If Nixon were ineffectual, then he would not be so vilified by his enemies. Like him or not, his policies have dominated America. I would say that the only politician who has had more of an effect is FDR, and he had 4 terms.

I don't think this counts as a Godwin, because that's the literally the same thing as saying Hitler's admirable because he's still talked about today.

[Averroës Nix]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

True, one is an empirical measure, and one is not. I'm sure it's easy enough for Democrats to argue that no republican ever has been a success at governing, but that isn't reliable information. What is reliable is that Eisenhower, Nixon, and Reagan managed to win over large proportions of Americans.

Democrats are still referring to Nixon as if he were the great satan. Surely, that is not a measure of success? If Nixon were ineffectual, then he would not be so vilified by his enemies. Like him or not, his policies have dominated America. I would say that the only politician who has had more of an effect is FDR, and he had 4 terms.

[King]

Reagan was a commanding figure.  He incited strong followers and strong detractors.  Mittens is just a politician.

[wildfood]

Reagan was one of the "true believers" who wrested comtrol of the Republican party from the moderates (Rockefeller Republicans, one of whom was Romney's father). Romney is one of the moderates who lost control from the "true conservatives.

Reagan was simply a mouthpiece and, until the Soviet Union fell, Reagan was considered a mediocre president by many conservatives due to his deficits and what was then perceived as his lack of agression against communism.

Put simply, Reagan wasn't even Reagan, until the Soviets fell.

[Ogre Mage]

I would not have voted for Reagan because of disagreements about policy.  However, Reagan had strong candidate skills and Romney does not.