About us Login Get email updates
County Fair
Print

Will the next Ronald Reagan please stand up?

September 01, 2010 12:13 am ET by Mike Burns

In an August 31 Washington Times editorial, former Reagan administration official and Heritage Foundation writer James T. Hackett attempted to remedy what has so far eluded conservatives - finding "a new Ronald Reagan." His suggested "heir" to "the Gipper's" throne? Sarah Palin, who has been nominated for the role in the past by Ann Coulter and Richard A. Viguerie

Now, you would think that conservative media would approach labeling individuals "the next Ronald Reagan" the same way they purport to approach most things - with a "less is more" attitude. This is, after all, the Ronald Reagan, an iconic right-wing hero. Sadly, however, this is not the case. Observe:

  • Earlier today, Fox Nation featured the headline: Christie's Starting to Look Like Reagan" and accompanied the headline with the following image:

  • In a February 27 article on American Thinker, Bruce Walker wrote that "One Republican in 2008 met all those criteria, and in 2012, he stands out at least as clearly as anyone as our Next Reagan: Fred Thompson." Walker noted the "remarkable similarity in the lives of these two men," adding that Thompson fits Reagan's "role perfectly."
  • According to a September 14, 2009 post at The American Spectator headlined "The Next Reagan? Maybe," candidate for Governor of California Meg Whitman has the potential to be "the next Reagan" because "she has clear convictions" and "the determination to carry them out against ... state government," as well as "the optimistic, sunny personality needed to roll with the punches."
  • In an October 21, 2007 National Ledger column, Accuracy in Media's Cliff Kincaid offered Mike Huckabee as the next potential Reagan, arguing that Huckabee was "demonstrating that he has the Reagan vision" by "denouncing the Law of the Sea Treaty."
  • Right-wing radio host Neal Boortz wrote on his website, "I truly believe that Rubio could very well be the next Ronald Reagan for the GOP. Democrats believe that too ... that's why they're pulling out all the stops to derail him."
  • As documented by the blog Think Progress, Rush Limbaugh has repeatedly referred to Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-LA) as "the next Ronald Reagan," adding that Jindal represents "100% conservatism."

Considering that most rising conservative figures are compared to Reagan by their counterparts in the media, maybe the question isn't who is "the next Ronald Reagan," but who isn't it?

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by grrson (September 01, 2010 12:21 am ET)
      5  
      Jindal? Jesus...

      Calling that guy an empty suit is an insult to empty suits.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by pointofview (September 01, 2010 12:21 am ET)
      2 19
      Lets just all be glad that no one is in line to be the next Obama. Our country could not handle that.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by nerzog (September 01, 2010 9:10 am ET)
        9  
        Obama would be fine if the Troglodytes in Congress would stop acting like toddlers.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by worrierking (September 01, 2010 10:13 am ET)
        5  
        Please explain exactly how the particular policies implemented by the Obama administration which are causing the massive problems we face today?

        Since you've been around for years defending the previous administration's tax cuts, deregulation, unnecessary wars and financial policies, don't try placing all of the blame of the current occupant of the White House until you accept the fact, that you were wrong to defend the policies of the Republican clown and chair moistener who sat in the Oval office.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by soze169880 (September 01, 2010 11:01 am ET)
        2  
        Please explain, in detail, what Barack Obama is doing the country "can't handle". That, or slink back to Troll Hell, since no one cares.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by political_left-religious_right (September 02, 2010 9:58 am ET)
           
        Ironically, pointless, I was just wondering who the GOP was going to trot out as the next George W. Bush or next Dick Cheney. Frankly, even they have too much sense to try that.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by progressiveright (September 01, 2010 12:23 am ET)
      8  
      The real Ronald Regan was no Ronald Regan. Many of the things the right has opposed since Regan were exactly what Regan did. He would also not tolerate this party of NO!!!!!!!!!!!!! mentality in the GOP.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by magnolialover (September 01, 2010 11:31 am ET)
        2  
        Exactly.

        If Reagan were running for President in 2012, he wouldn't get the nomination from the republican party. No way. No how. They would probably be calling him a RINO, and the Tea Party wouldn't like him.

        How they fail to see what Reagan did, and or believed in. It's funny.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by political_left-religious_right (September 02, 2010 9:55 am ET)
        1  
        (Reagan) would also not tolerate this party of NO!!!!!!!!!!!!! mentality...

        Actually, I disagree. Reagan was a party of no mentality.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by eweston8542983 (September 01, 2010 12:42 am ET)
      1  
      I nominate any Republican whose pretty clever with his teeth.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by phredicles (September 01, 2010 12:52 am ET)
      7 2
      Palin is dumber than a sack of doorknobs, like the Gypper. And, like St. Ronnie, there is something distinctly unnatural about her hair. Dumbelina referred to "the country of Africa", and Reagan came back from a tour of South America remarking, "You'd be surprised. They're all different countries down there." My point,is, it looks pretty obvious to me.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by jbraskin4786 (September 01, 2010 1:14 am ET)
      2  
      What would Ronald Reagan or Barry Goldwater say about some of these guys?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by phredicles (September 01, 2010 1:39 am ET)
        6  
        I think Reagan would love 'em. He wasn't just dumb; he was at heart a mean old b@stard who loved implying anyone who disagreed with him was a commie dupe or sympathizer. I can't be the only one who remembers this.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by rusty hinges (September 01, 2010 8:33 am ET)
          3  
          A typical rethug (or fox noise "reporter" then. And why would we want another alzheimer sufferer and bad actor in office again?
          Report Abuse
        • Author by mattcable250650 (September 01, 2010 9:16 am ET)
          6  
          I went to college in Washington DC during the last two years of Carter and the first two of Reagan, so I have a little more familiarity with Reagan than most. F'rinstance, my roommate was watching the local news when they brought Reagan into the hospital after the assassination attempt, y'know the one where he cheerfully laughed and joked throughout his treatment? Nah, my roommate says Reagan was in NO shape to make jokes. He was brought in deathly pale and clearly hurting. The "jokes" (As the surgeons were starting to cut, Reagan reportedly said "I hope you guys are all Republicans") were clearly an after-the-fact propaganda exercise.
          I never saw the cheerful, sunny, smiling Reagan that everyone seems to remember. I saw a mean old cuss who knew exactly the kinds of thugs and butchers he was supporting in Central America.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by okiepoli (September 01, 2010 8:05 am ET)
        5  
        I believe Goldwater would maintain the stance he took in 1989, that the Republican party had been taken over by a bunch of kooks. Goldwater strengthened this position in 1994 by saying:
        "When you say 'radical right' today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican party and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye."
        Source
        IMO - Goldwater had faults, but he was a principled conservative, and would lambast these idiots.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by dogbreath (September 01, 2010 10:19 am ET)
          2  
          Agreed. I don't agree with many of the things that Goldwater forwarded but he realized, quite early on, that the Republican party was going down a dangerous path and taking a huge segment of the country with it. I think he would gladly call these clowns out for what they are, unprincipled dolts who carry water solely for Wall Street and the upper-class.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by grmce (September 01, 2010 6:52 am ET)
      5  
      It's a pretty sad commentary on that side of politics that they are continually looking at the world through rose tinted rear vision mirrors. the quest for the reincarnation of a dead man suggests that they have no view of the future - just some wishfully recreated memories of a past that didn't really happen that way.

      Pitiful.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by nerzog (September 01, 2010 9:17 am ET)
        2  
        The Republican party is all about deception and misdirection... the main function of their think tanks is to formulate propaganda, not policy. The only real policy position they have is more tax cuts for people who don't need them.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by grrson (September 01, 2010 10:17 am ET)
          3  
          Just think about how the GOP would react if Barack Obama's administration got caught secretly selling arms to Iran like Reagan did.

          Remember, old white presidents can do no wrong. Even if they sell weapons to the guys who more-or-less popularized the "Death to America" chant.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by wookie (September 01, 2010 10:02 am ET)
        3  
        They basically have a right wing Garden of Eden that was corrupted when the big bad government introduced original sin. If we can only get back to the government providing only a defense industry and Jesus statues in government buildings then we are bound to live in bliss...
        Report Abuse
      • Author by dogbreath (September 01, 2010 10:27 am ET)
        2  
        Well said and very true. It's pretty sad that a political party has to continually look backwards, to a leader that they have heavily revised, for some sort of inspiration. The whole party is floundering largely because they are bankrupt of ideas and have been managed to wedge themselves into a corner with the religious right. I think the Republican party, as we know it, is suffering a slow death. They will manage to still get elected and will at times prove to be powerful, but I think the writing is on the wall. The American people sometimes have to be beat upside the head several times before they grasp reality, but that time will indeed come. The Republicans have no solutions for the middle-class and they largely hold that group in contempt. Ultimately, they will fail.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by soze169880 (September 01, 2010 11:14 am ET)
      5  
      And to answer the headline, no, they can't, because if they're comparable to Reagan, they've fallen asleep in their chair.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by shaggles (September 01, 2010 11:46 am ET)
      2  
      The question is which Reagan? The dottering old fool who fell asleep at meetings and joked about anuclear attack on the Soviet Union or the mythological creature the right has created from his legacy? Never mind. I know what they mean. Someone with broad popular appeal who can win elections.
      Report Abuse