I'll point out the obvious here -- something overlooked by the vast majority of Republicans / Conservatives:

Conservative policies do not work.

Tax cuts do not produce growth or "trickle down" economics, they make rich people richer (until the next market crash at least). Unjustifiable & unending wars likewise are not healthy or sustainable. Favoring big business over "the little guy" results in everything being less safe for everyone, from our peanut butter to our bridges.

Latching on to an old, old president, if you want to be honest, something which will definitely resonate with a younger generation who watched Bush botch everything and the religious right act in ways that the now generation finds appalling.

Good. Luck. With. That.

They don't even talk about Reagan's actual body of work. Just the fake cartoon Reagan that happens to be a huge wingnut. All the other stuff is discarded. The real Reagan would be getting destroyed as a RINO traitor on RedState today.

The party of Christianity really aught to know the first commandment. "You shall have no other gods besides me."

Because 1977 is how far back you have to go to find a platform in which the REpublicans can spin from. Apparently people _do_ remember the mistakes of the past more than we give them credit.

"latching onto old dead presidents"

Yeah, Millard Fillmore really rallies the troops.

And while that's no doubt the purpose of the exercise, Emerie's article doesn't exactly offer modern Republican leaders a road map. According to the piece, Reagan, for example, spent much of 1977 emphasizing a hawkish approach to the Soviet Union. In 2009, there is no Cold War. In 1977, Reagan also encouraged the party to work in concert with the fledgling religious right movement. However, the religious right is no longer fledgling, it's already part of the GOP coalition, and isn't much of a movement anymore.

An ultra-hawkish approach to America's enemies and major time towards the agenda of the religious right. That sounds like a recipe for moving forward, though I don't see how it could possibly be successful since it isn't any different from what Republicans have been doing for the last 8 years. Let them go with that, should be interesting to watch them continue to lose.

So, the plan is for the GOP leadership to cut a secret deal with Iran, undermining the President's diplomatic efforts? "Reagan in Opposition," after all.

I'll re-post something I posted a few months ago. I hope it's still good for a laugh:

The Lord sent a Prophet unto the people. And a man came from the land of the wood of the holly and his name was Saint Ronald.

And Saint Ronald said unto them, “Blessed are they who cut the taxes of millionaires, for they shall be beloved of God above all other men.

“Keep true to your Faith and the Lord shall smile upon thee and thy land shall prosper. For with the power of tax cuts the faithful can hold back the flood waters, cause the fields and orchards to be bountiful and cure the common cold.

“And as tax cuts are the bedrock of a nation, so is de-regulation the foundation. Trust not to government, for it is the instrument of Satan. Place thy trust instead in market capitalism, for unhindered capitalism can never do evil�

And Saint Ronald pointed to a drawn curtain, saying, “Pay thou no attention to that which is behind the curtain.�

For behind the curtain was all manner of evil things. There was the Savings and Loan Crisis, and the Enron Energy Manipulation, and Deficits Doubled and Redoubled, and Poisoned Food from China, and American Soldiers Electrocuted in Showers Built by KBR/Haliburton, and Sub-Prime Mortgage Scandal and the Credit Meltdown.

And Saint Ronald said, “For those who live their Faith, the evils behind the curtain shall be invisible and it shall be as if they never existed at all.�

And Saint Ronald sat down with his followers, including George H. W. Bush who betrayed him.

And Saint Ronald picked up a tax and cut it, saying unto his followers, “Take and cut this tax, for millionaires are the body of our party. Do this in remembrance of me.�

And when they had all cut the tax, Saint Ronald took a regulation and overturned it saying, “Take and overturn this regulation, for corporations are the blood of our party. Do this in remembrance of me.�

Bottom line: Reagan was a trained actor and accomplished pitchman... and the American public fell for it.

The damage he did lingers on as a gift that keeps on giving... and giving...

Unfortunately, Obama is an admirer of Reagan also.

1. Do what Ronald Reagan did in 1977.

2. ????

3. Profit!

Conservative policies do not work.

Not too quibble, Zhak, but their policies worked flawlessly. The country is in the state it is in because of the success of those policies, not their failure. Disastrous they may be. But not failures.

And that's the real difference between now and then. In 1977 the logical conclusion of the policies Reagan espoused were not apparent. Granted, they should have been to anyone who knew anything about history. But Jimmy Carter had been attacked by a rabbit, which clearly was more important.

Emerie's article doesn't exactly offer modern Republican leaders a road map.

There is nothing modern about this crop of Republican leaders.

They are the party of Lincoln, maybe they could start opposing slavery. They will need a divided Whig Party to get elected. This is going to be tougher than they thought.

Reagan was a gifted communicator and by '77, the Democrats had been in power long enough to have ample weaknesses and failures to attack. Reagan was vigorous, yet traditional and reassuring. Maybe things really were as simple as he made them seem?

The parties' positions are reversed today. It is the Republicans who are burdened with a legacy of failure, up against a skilled, confident politician providing genuine leadership.

R's ought to use this time in the wilderness constructively. The lack of power is an opportunity to work on a compelling vision and plan for the future. They need to start Thinking again.

Steele wants to look forward by looking backward to a past that never really was, returning the U.S. to policies that not only failed but created most of the messes we see left and right.

I now understand why revisionist history is critical to conservative thinking. I also understand why they're so dizzy.

The piece did make a few good points, but they were about tactics, not policies: Reagan was a good and energetic campaigner, he made sure he kept in the public eye throughout Carter's presidency, he picked a few strong issues, came up with easily-expressed, positive, constructive policy positions on them, and concentrated on those rather than trying to harry every single Carter policy, and he made himself, to a large extent, the obvious Republican leader.

All these are good advice, going right back to Cato the Younger. If I were running a Republican campaign, I'd probably follow more or less the same blueprint.

God, I hate being the old guy around here. As someone who remembers 1977, Reagan was not the presumptive GOP nominee then. There was still some talk that Baker, Crane (yes, Phil Crane) or Bush I might carry the GOP banner.

Carter was still quite popular in 1977, and got a lot of things done, some of them quite progressive. The collapse of the economy ("stagflation") and the Iran hostage crisis came later.

In short, Reagan won the presidency in 1980, not 1977.

In 1977 the Democrats had held Congress for 42 of the previous 44 years. The Heritage Foundation movement, fronted by puppet Reagan, had the advantage of presenting novel, untried ideas that conflicted with the established status quo.

Normally such radical ideas don't have a chance at the ballot box unless things are really bad. When the world went to hell in 1979-80 (stagflation, Iranian hostages, Olympic boycott, disco, etc.) the conditions were right for Reagan to get a whopping 51% of the vote (with 6% voting for protest candidate Anderson) and for the Republicans to get a slim majority in the Senate.

If the Republicans want historical analogies then realistically they are where the Democrats were in 1981. Having long held power they were blamed for the country's woes, and pretty much had to sit back and give the Republicans a chance.

Of course, in 1981 the Democrats chose the cooperation route. As such, they held on to the House and got the Senate back 6 years later -- even though Reaganism was widely given credit for the 1986 economic boom.

The Republicans today are choosing a different route, one that bets on things getting much worse than they are now -- so bad that voters will overlook their disgust at the Republican era of 1995-2009 and decide that even Gingrichism looks good.

Of course, this is highly unlikely to happen. Even if things just stay as bad as they are voters will stick with the Democratic party (at least in Congress) until the memory of the horrible 1995-2009 era fades.

1979 was crucial to Reagan, as it was fear of extremism a la Iran that made it possible for the cowboy to beat Carter (who was painted as a weakling). Cheney is already doing a Reagan, he just doesn't have his Iranian Revolution to ride to prominence.

To me, the big flaw is that Republicans weren't a strictly conservative party yet, so moving to the right made sense; particularly if the non-conservatives didn't notice what was going on. But they took that lesson to heart and went all-out conservative, pushing everyone else away over the years. So at this point, they need to pull back in the other direction, but the conservatives won't let them.

And of course, a lot of the Democrats and Independents that Reagan reached out to were conservative, and are now Republicans. And everyone else jumped ship. And again, all this points to the need for them to become less conservative. Following Reagan wouldn't mean going further to the right, but rather, appealing to voters they don't already have. I doubt that's what the Weekly Standard wants them to do.

"they will need a divided Whig Party to get elected"

Umm, the last time the Whig Party was divided, they, not only lost, but, split. Lincoln had been a Whig, but, had left them much earlier to join with the Free Soilers and the Abolitionists to become the Republican Party. The Whigs were only left with slave supporting followers of "Do Nothing" Millard Fillmore and disintegrated. However, this group would be far more welcomed by RepuG conventions than Lincoln, himself. Bring back Millard is their cry.

Obama may be an admirer of Reagan, but I doubt it's Reagans policies that he admires. What he admires is the political genius and his masterful public persona.

Not too quibble, Zhak, but their policies worked flawlessly. The country is in the state it is in because of the success of those policies, not their failure. Disastrous they may be. But not failures.

No, zhak is right. Their policies do not work. The GOP's only success was its ability to make Americans believe their policies were rousing successes, even as they led the country to economic ruin..

Reagan was a deliberate, vicious liar who was able to bamboozle enough gullible, ignorant people with bullshit to get elected.

There's no need for Emerie to exhort today's Republicans to emulate Reagan, because they are already deliberate, vicious liars devoted to bamboozling gullible, ignorant people with bullshit.

If it isn't working as well for them as it did for Reagan, that's because he was simply more talented at it (he was a grade B actor, but a trained actor nonetheless), and perhaps, one may hope, because there aren't as many gullible, ignorant people ready to fall for the Republicans' line of bullshit as there once were.

Republican policies have been an overwhelming success at concentrating wealth and power in the hands of the Republican Party's wealthy and powerful financial backers, which is the actual purpose of Republican policies.

If a con artist bamboozles you out of your life savings, the "policies" of the con artist are not a "failure" because you are destitute. The con artist is a success. YOU are the failure, because you let yourself be bamboozled.

Most Americans are surely suffering today as a result of Republican policies, but the Republican policy makers are not the "failures". The Republicans -- on behalf of their ultra-rich financial backers -- succeeded. The American people are the ones who failed, by allowing those sleazy, lying con artists to take power.

Reagan wasn't so much elected in 1980 as Carter was repudiated.

The election was essentially over the day those helicopters crashed in the Iranian desert.

"Reagan was a deliberate, vicious liar who was able to bamboozle enough gullible, ignorant people with bullshit to get elected."

It's always good to be reminded that liberals can be just as deliberately blind to reality as any conservative.

Mike

Whatever, Reagan wouldn't be allowed in the party of Palin, Rush, and Beck. He might have done a lot of bad things, but he was at least rational. I just don't see Ronald Reagan tea bagging with jesus while telling the disenfranchised to get armed to the T for the revolution.

The Irony Gods have spoken loudly to Tom Tancredo and Newt Gingrich: here is the official statement from NCLR — La Raza — in June, 2004 on the occasion of Reagan's death (thanks to Kos diarist DFutureIsNow):

STATEMENT OF RAUL YZAGUIRRE, NCLR PRESIDENT, ON PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN

Washington, DC – "The National Council of La Raza (NCLR) extends its condolences to former First Lady Nancy Reagan, the Reagan family, and the millions of Americans who today are mourning the death of our 40th President, Ronald Reagan. President Reagan’s boundless optimism and his unshakable faith in what this country is – and what it could be – resonated deeply with many in the Hispanic community. After all, Ronald Reagan was responsible for the first Hispanic Cabinet member in our nation’s history, when he appointed Lauro Cavazos as Secretary of Education in 1988.

Hispanics also appreciated that President Reagan’s vision of America as a beacon of hope and opportunity for all included immigrants, millions of whom he helped to become Americans. Not only did he sign the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) – which included two highly- controversial legalization programs – into law in 1986, his administration worked diligently to implement these programs.

It may not be widely known but the nation’s largest and most successful antipoverty program – the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) – was also created in tax reform legislation signed by President Reagan. After a subsequent major expansion successfully promoted by President Clinton, the credit is now worth more than $1,800 to the more than one-third of low-wage working Hispanic households who benefit from the EITC.

But my main memories of President Reagan are about the man himself. He was always courteous, even “courtly,� in his dealings with people from all walks of life. In this sense, he exuded respeto – respect – in a way that connected powerfully with the Latino community. Many of those involved in the highly partisan, divisive debates that characterize all too many issues today might benefit from following his example.

We may not have always agreed with the Reagan Administration’s policies, but there is no question that President Reagan had a profound influence and impact on the American political process, the nation, and the world. May he rest in peace."

I think that it's high time that Tancredo and Gingrich tell the country what traitorous things Ronald Reagan did to merit such praise from these vicious KKK-style Hispanic separatists.

The key points: that 1977 was not 1980 and that after 25 or so years of so called Reagan Republicanism we now know how much damage it can do to us and to the planet.

But for those with more time I recommend rereading
Ted Kennedy's 1980 concession speech at the Democratic National Convention ("and the dream will never die") to fully remember where we were, how far we traveled down the dark tunnel, that to a large extent we were warned that Reagan would take us there, and finally that we now are travelling back into the light.

"We must not permit the Republicans to seize and run on the slogans of prosperity. We heard the orators at their convention all trying to talk like Democrats. They proved that even Republican nominees can quote Franklin Roosevelt to their own purpose.
The Grand Old Party thinks it has found a great new trick, but 40 years ago an earlier generation of Republicans attempted the same trick. And Franklin Roosevelt himself replied, "Most Republican leaders have bitterly fought and blocked the forward surge of average men and women in their pursuit of happiness. Let us not be deluded that overnight those leaders have suddenly become the friends of average men and women."
"You know," he continued, "very few of us are that gullible." And four years later when the Republicans tried that trick again, Franklin Roosevelt asked, "Can the Old Guard pass itself off as the New Deal? I think not. We have all seen many marvelous stunts in the circus, but no performing elephant could turn a handspring without falling flat on its back."
The 1980 Republican convention was awash with crocodile tears for our economic distress, but it is by their long record and not their recent words that you shall know them.
The same Republicans who are talking about the crisis of unemployment have nominated a man who once said, and I quote, "Unemployment insurance is a prepaid vacation plan for freeloaders." And that nominee is no friend of labor.
The same Republicans who are talking about the problems of the inner cities have nominated a man who said, and I quote, "I have included in my morning and evening prayers every day the prayer that the Federal Government not bail out New York." And that nominee is no friend of this city and our great urban centers across this nation.
The same Republicans who are talking about security for the elderly have nominated a man who said just four years ago that "Participation in social security should be made voluntary." And that nominee is no friend of the senior citizens of this nation.
The same Republicans who are talking about preserving the environment have nominated a man who last year made the preposterous statement, and I quote, "Eighty percent of our air pollution comes from plants and trees." And that nominee is no friend of the environment.
And the same Republicans who are invoking Franklin Roosevelt have nominated a man who said in 1976, and these are his exact words, "Fascism was really the basis of the New Deal." And that nominee whose name is Ronald Reagan has no right to quote Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
The great adventures which our opponents offer is a voyage into the past. Progress is our heritage, not theirs. What is right for us as Democrats is also the right way for Democrats to win.
The commitment I seek is not to outworn views but to old values that will never wear out. Programs may sometimes become obsolete, but the ideal of fairness always endures. Circumstances may change, but the work of compassion must continue. It is surely correct that we cannot solve problems by throwing money at them, but it is also correct that we dare not throw out our national problems onto a scrap heap of inattention and indifference. The poor may be out of political fashion, but they are not without human needs. The middle class may be angry, but they have not lost the dream that all Americans can advance together."

Ted Kennedy was not a perfect candidate to most effectively win these arguments although he had perfect pitch when he made them, and he had made some incorrect policy choices (evidenced perhaps when he brags in the speech about 'deregulation'legislation he carried), but who can say now with the record of the last 39 years that he was not correct about Regan and the Republicans?

reagan's domestic agenda was trickle-down and deregulation... we all know how well that worked out... his foreign policy was fighting the cold war and breaking the law....not all that resonant these days.....

but most importantly, for "learning from reagan" to work, you need a candidate reagan.....who has the gop got? cheney? ginrich? tancredo? huck? mitt?

none of those guys have mass-appeal written all over them...

Ran across a blog demonstrating an extreme attachment to Reagan. At the end of the top post, the blogger presents, without comment, a photshopped picture of Cheney & Bush waterboarding Speaker Pelosi. I was just like "What kinds of diseased minds are running around in the Reagan nostalgia movement?!?!?!"
I went to college in Washington DC for the last two years of Carter and the first two of Reagan. By the end of his first year, I had turned away from Republican beliefs and decided that I was a lefty.

"Reagan was a deliberate, vicious liar who was able to bamboozle enough gullible, ignorant people with bullshit to get elected."

It's always good to be reminded that liberals can be just as deliberately blind to reality as any conservative.

Mike

What part of the original statement do you think is incorrect?

This is the man who told us that trees were the major source of air pollution, that Social Security recipients were “A faceless mass, waiting for handouts� that the pope supported aid to the contras, that he was present at the liberation a concentration camp despite never leaving California, that he chose to make fewer movies because it would put him in a higher taxbracket despite the fact hat he was contracted under the old studio system paid a flat yearly rate for a fixed number of movies, that there is no russion word for “freedom�, etc etc

oops, for russion read russian

Hopefully, by following the advice of the departed, drooling vegetable-in-chief, the GOP will end up where Reagan is today...dead, buried and rotting.

What a lot of people seem not to notice is that ever since 1932, the Republicans have been struggling to get into, and then maintain themselves in, power. They have been able to regularly elect presidents but, except for rare occasions, haven't been able to control all three branches of the Federal government:
1920-1932 followed by the Great Depression.
2002-2006 followed by the Great Recession.
Republicans also controlled Congress from 1946 to 1948 and again from 1952 to 1954. They have controlled the House several times as well as the Senate, but until 2002 I don't believe their control of both Houses was simultaneous (I am probably in error).
My point is, though, that the average voter seems to have shown since the 1920s, a discernable distrust for giving the Republicans complete control of government. The mid-40s was, I believe, a reaction against FDR's four terms as much as anything else. The early 50's, as well as the most recent occasion, were brought about as much by fear-mongering on a disgusting level as by anything else.
I would think the Republican leaders and thinkers (there have to be some of the latter somewhere!) might ask themselves why they are only able to gain control of the Federal government by scaring the hell out the citizenry.

Fear-mongering...now why does that sound familiar?

One could argue it is the same course that Democrats followed with FDR and it will lead along a similar path. Right now, the Republicans have reached the post-LBJ stage.

Mazel tov, guys.

So you're telling me that the Republicans are to blame for the failures of Franklin D'Stalin Roosevelt? Republicans implemented the disastrous Federal Reserve, implemented a pyramid scheme called Social Security, have radical groups such as the Black Panther supporting them, picks Justices that do not follow the Constitution, but rather personal beliefs, implement counter-productive regulations that actually CREATE monopolies, and plan on forcing EVERYONE to be come insured under the government, therefore creating dependence upon said government? Republicans did all of this?

Wake up, idiots. Obama is not the messiah, and the Republican party is no better. If Americans were intelligent, Ron Paul or Bob Barr would be President right now.

Isn't the definition of a conservative someone that latches onto the past, and struggles against any progress?

Why is this a new revelation? They've always peddled the same old hash.