By Mande Wilkes || As the two major political parties have continued to merge in practice if not in ideology itself, Ronald Reagan has crystallized into Republican exemplar extraordinaire. The former U.S. president has, in the decades since he left office, cemented into the very symbol of conservatism.
Just ask our founding editor about that …
It turns out, though, that Reagan’s legacy is largely undeserved and wholly inaccurate. Today he’s held up as an unflinchingly Republican leader, but his presidency was in fact markedly more centrist than conservative.
Let’s have a go at the way-back machine, shall we?
1. Fiscal conservatism is the foundation of Reagan’s legacy. But guess what? He was responsible for several tax increases, some of the revenues from which – beginning in 1983 – went toward the funding of Medicare. So, not only did Reagan raise taxes, he raised taxes to pay for what today we refer to as “socialized medicine.” As if that weren’t enough, there’s even further proof that Reagan was hardly the fiscal conservative he’s chalked up to be. Not only did he not decrease the national deficit, he didn’t even manage to stabilize it. During each of his eight years in office, the federal deficit grew significantly.
So much for Reagan’s storied fiscal conservatism.
2. Limited government is the second foundational principle of “Reaganomics.” Here, too, homeboy hardly practiced what he preached. While Reagan was president, more than 60,000 workers were added to the federal payroll.
So much for Reagan’s storied commitment to small government.
Now, moving on to social issues. It turns out Reagan was no social conservative, either …
3. Today we label it “xenophobia,” but Reagan’s regard for the rule of law as it applies to immigration comprises another chunk of his legacy. Yet it was Reagan himself who, upon signing the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, provided for the amnesty of more than 2.5 million people.
So much for Reagan’s storied opposition to amnesty.
4. Reagan was caustically committed to pro-life principles – but two of his own Supreme Court appointments were pro-choice. Squandering his ostensible commitment to overturning Roe v. Wade, Reagan’s judicial appointments consistently voted to preserve reproductive choice.
So much for Reagan’s storied promotion of the pro-life agenda.
So … Ronald Reagan has gone down in history as a Republican legend. But history proves him to be anything but a legendary conservative. He is, in a nutshell, a fable: The myth looms far larger than the man himself.
By Tiny Elvis February 2, 2010 at 11:16 am
WOW! I wonder if Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck know this?
By sclawboy February 2, 2010 at 11:37 am
They are too stupid to care.
By Liberty For Me February 2, 2010 at 11:46 am
I totally agree…I guess if you are putting the presidents of the past century on a scale, he might be the best(not saying much).But the pedestal the Republicans put Reagan on is totally undeserved.I would love to have a Republic where he was remembered as the least conservative.
We have 90 years to make this the century of the second revolution, the remaking of liberty and finding true conservatism.Bush and Obama might in the end become the line that was finally crossed to awaken our natural thirst for freedom and Reagan a footnote instead of a bogus political god
By countryboy February 2, 2010 at 11:47 am
Would be interesting to know (and we never will) how much Nancy influenced Reagans decisions that were, as you point out, not conservative. But who knows what Reagan believed, after all, he was an actor.
By Ben&Pete February 2, 2010 at 11:47 am
This post – ripped from the Headlines:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-02-01/the-republicans-reagan-amnesia/?cid=hp:mainpromo5
By CNSYD February 2, 2010 at 11:50 am
You guys at FITS fail to understand how easy things are when you are not “in charge” and don’t possess all the facts. This is what happened to Reagan. It was easy to preach to the choir when he was not President. When he became President he quickly found out that the world is much more complicated than he ever imagined.
By Genomic Repairman February 2, 2010 at 11:53 am
This just in who gives a shit, the man is dead. Stop invoking the name of a past politician who is now giving back to constituent service by acting as worm food. Look towards the future and maybe we can get somewhere.
By Mande February 2, 2010 at 11:59 am
Tiny Elvis -
In spite of reality, hardcore Republicans HAVE to deify Reagan because that permits them to talk a big game about *the good ole days of the grand ole party.*
Ben&Pete -
Attribution turns you on, huh?
-Mande
By Liberty For Me February 2, 2010 at 12:07 pm
By the way….I believe the immigration debate is a Neocon knee-jerk issue.Just as bogus as the “WAR” on terror… or drugs for that matter.
I of course am for the rule of law..But this would not be an issue if the constitution was upheld and we did not dole out so called entitlements.Its the old bait and switch,smoke and mirrors on the issue trick….No entitlements, no resentment,no problem…..
Stop demonizing hard working people and hold the true criminal ,the government, accountable
By Mike Traynor February 2, 2010 at 12:07 pm
Counterpoint:
1. Reagan lowered capital gains taxes and income taxes dramatically. The tax increases you cite herein were user fees and minor adjustments to the code. He was the author of SWEEPING tax reform that lowered taxes significantly. You can nit-pick a few things, but the overall picture you paint is not accurate. The deficit grew because Congress disregarded Reagan’s budgets and blew it themselves.
2. Name a time when the number of federal employees has shrunk. Reagan kept the growth of gov’t to a much lower level than anyone. Adding 60,000 federal employees? Obama did that in a month.
3. Reagan did grant amnesty but you again paint the issue too broadly. Don’t have enough space here to rebut.
4. As for pro-life, you are being too cute. O’Connor’s writings suggested pro-life before her confirmation. Rehnquist was fiercely pro-life. Scalia and Bork–pro life. Kennedy was nominated after Bork and Ginsburg’s failed nomination. Reagan needed a more moderate or he faced a third rejection, which gave us Kennedy. In practice Kennedy has favored incrementalism in his pro life stance. His stance in Hodgson restricted abortions and he joined O’Connor in Casey–which dialed back abortion. Roe will not be overturned wholesale. It will be defeated a step at a time. Reagan’s team has moved in that direction and how can you dispute that Reagan was fiercely pro life? He promoted that agenda consistently, and your comment in that regard is false.
The comments of the sheeple on this board are mind-numbing.
By Old Bike Dude February 2, 2010 at 12:48 pm
@Countryboy,”he was an actor”. Therein was my problem with Pres Reagan. Electing an actor to political office is like marrying a prostitiute, you’ll never know when it’s real. However he had the courage, dignity, and respect to attend the arrival of those bodies blown out of our barrack in Beirut. When I learned this I was duly impressed and that is my lasting memory of Pres Reagan. But actors as elected officials, imho, is not good and as such I have avoided supporting folks like Palin and Thompson.
By OhNoNotAgain February 2, 2010 at 1:03 pm
I think it’s important to note that for whatever the reasons, he compromised his fierce principles.
The thing he accomplished that can’t be denied is made the presidency important and respected again. Though I honestly thing John Hinkley had a hand in it, too. Sympathy for him, surprise that he’d survived the bullet.
But a lot of respect for Reagan, even then was based on image and not on substance.
A poll asked toward the wnd of his term, who’s taller? Reagan or George H.W. Bush?
Majority said Reagan was taller.
Reality says Bush was.
It was the image projected that made him this icon now, even though the reality isn’t that simple.
By Recovering Lobbyist February 2, 2010 at 1:38 pm
It is easy to select minor facts and declare a trend. Mike Traynor has it right and Mandee has it wrong.
Was President Reagan a right-wing conservative? No. What he was, in point of fact, was a man of strong principles who rarely wavered but also was realistic enough to know when to compromise. Justice Kennedy, for example, was not a proud moment for Reagan. But then when you get your ass kicked twice, you take your lumps and get what you can.
The fact is America is a centrist nation. Americans admire Reagan not because he was conservative, but because he was principled–something few modern politicians can claim.
By Mike at the beach February 2, 2010 at 1:41 pm
Folks (that’s the small-f type, not the Sic type) get fixated on Reagan for all kinds of different reasons, but this article was not the product of a serious thinking session; it was just plain weird… Thanks Traynor for posting what I would have had you not beat me to it.
The one thing I would add to your points in regard to fiscal issues- Reagan was also fighting – and winning – the Cold war as he busily repaired our decimated and dangerously underfunded Carter-era military. I know this for certain because I was in it at the time, and I’ll never forget how happy my company commander was when our training ammo budget got reinstated.
By CL February 2, 2010 at 1:45 pm
Just a lot of nonsense to rebut it all, but I would note that the top marginal rate was 70% when Reagan took office. He got it down below 30%. Plus, much of the budget increases under Reagan were defense spending, which helped us win the Cold War. To see his budget hawk bona fides, look at non-defense discretionary spending. Reagan is the only president (at least back to LBJ) that managed to reduce NDD spending (-9.7 in his 1st term). NDD spending did increase 0.2% his 2nd term, but that is the 2nd best any president has ever done in controlling NDD spending (2nd only to his own 1st term reduction).
http://www.aei.org/paper/20675
By PasserBy February 2, 2010 at 2:24 pm
Mande:
Most of the replies I’d post have already been made, but I would tend to agree this is more of an “outcome driven” article. I agree the gipper wasn’t all that & a bag of chips, and has been elevated since his departure, but I also think he was more conservative in a way most RINO’s now are not. It does suggest that if you look at enough facts, you can make them fit most anything.
By Liberty For Me February 2, 2010 at 2:29 pm
My point holds true…If you are comparing modern day presidents that are working within the socialist restraints set early in this century.Then he was a good president.But being a “good” president hardly sets you up as the political god many Republicans uphold him to be.
The difference between Regan and Jefferson are worlds apart…But Ron Paul has proven that a true constitutional republic is obtainable again and the adherence to that should be the litmus test.
Quoting tax rates to me proves little in what a President should be.
The Liberty he stands for and bringing forces together to keep us free is what is most important.In the time he was president maybe he did the most he could, do I dont know.But he was no Barry Goldwater
By vern February 2, 2010 at 2:42 pm
I love reading what conservatives write sometimes because it just makes me laugh that there are truly some people as delusional as those that post on this website. Please try to get one of your tea bagging, fire breathing non-RINOs elected President. Please try, I am begging you as a proud Democrat to please keep all of this going. This litmus test that Republicans or Conservatives (I know some of you want to be called one and others the other) want applied to everyone will result in a more Democratic electorate than today.
If Ronald Reagan is being called a RINO then this ought to be an indication of how far right anyone that agrees with Mande is. In my opinion, Reagan will be the most conservative President ever elected in this country. Our country will never go “Right of Reagan” with the President of the United States but it is fun listening to the conservative wet dream of it happening.
By Liberty For Me February 2, 2010 at 3:00 pm
“Vern” …Keep laughing.I hope we keep you entertained until the next few elections when the socialists like you are purged in great numbers.
But,I guess like the Whitehouse you are in denial of what is happening in this country.That’s OK with me
By CL February 2, 2010 at 3:17 pm
vern,
I get a kick out of liberals accusing conservatives of applying a litmus test. It was your party that tried to run Lieberman out on a rail for refusing to get in lockstep with the liberal groupthink on Iraq.
If conservative ideals are so unpopular, why do Americans self-identify as conservative over liberal by a near 2:1 margin (40% conservative to 21% liberal)? Why do Democratic presidents have to adopt conservative positions to get elected? Or don’t you remember the mythical tax cutting, Afghanistan hawk Obama portrayed himself as? to get elected? Even liberal commentators were disgusted with how Sotomayor misrepresented herself (she sounded a lot like a Scalia or Thomas) during the confirmation hearings, but she knew it had to be done because the American people would recoil if she was true to her activist instincts.
By dirtbogger February 2, 2010 at 3:52 pm
Government needs people more than people need government. I like the pre Columbus form of Native American Government, which is none. Just wisdom passed down from one generation to the next.
By Genomic Repairman February 2, 2010 at 4:08 pm
Vern that’s not a challenge. Here is a challenge for you, try to elect a majority democratic house and senate in the SC legislature now that is a goddamn challenge my friend. If it happens I might actually donate some silver coinage to DNC. And that would be painful for me as those three letter chafe my asshole about as bad as cheap truck stop toilet paper.
By Genomic Repairman February 2, 2010 at 4:09 pm
Dirtbogger that form of government would still exist today if it weren’t for them also passing down smallpox blankets and whiskey.
By countryboy February 2, 2010 at 4:27 pm
Reagan was certainly perceived as a right winger by the Iranians, who released the hostages for fear he would retaliate (as opposed to that weak sister idiot Carter).
But the 27 or so radical muslim factions in Beirut obviously didn’t have that fear of Reagan, in view of the bombing of the Marine barracks on Reagan’s watch.
Like all Presidents Reagan did some good and some bad things. Well like most Presidents I should say. Can’t think of anything Carter did that was good for the country and I can’t think of a damn thing Obama has done that is good for the country, so far.
By flipnut February 2, 2010 at 6:49 pm
All of you please stop spewing lies about Regan. He did no wrong, and has now gone on to sit opposite Jesus next to God.
By BIN News February 2, 2010 at 7:20 pm
Manatee,
Our Funding Editor thinks you’re an over-privledged childish little girl who has too much time on her hands and needs a real job.
A job that doesn’t include late hours or brass poles. Actually, our Funding Editor put herself (so to speak) through University as a pole dancer.
But her Chief of Staff thinks you are hot.
Your latest post makes her even more hot for you.
Keep it up. She wants to meet you.
By Jonny D February 2, 2010 at 8:56 pm
Mande never took me up on that offer of a pearl necklace. That’s ok, I’m shipping her the latest and greatest sex toys so that she can pleasure herself and get happy!
By Silence Dogood February 2, 2010 at 9:03 pm
Mande, I normally can’t disagree with you more vociferously on just about anything (even your thongs are so yesterday article). But as the winner of the forme blog NotVeryBright’s Mande Wilkes contest – None the less, you finally hit the nail on the head. Mike T. you noted “Reagan lowered capital gains taxes and income taxes dramatically. The tax increases you cite herein were user fees and minor adjustments to the code.” “cite herein” on a blog post, really Michael? Either you are an attorney or traning to be one.
Not really, though, the taxes were hiked two time because the laffer curve never materialized and the gains everyone talked about for general economy in such a way as to replace lost revenues from the initial tax cuts. Reagan was forced to raise taxes (not just user) fees because the deficits became absolutely out of control after the implementation of his tax cuts. First and only President thus far to be divorced – not excactly the social conservatives dream boat. He ran on a platform (in part) of how terrible the national debt was – he managed to do a Bush II and double the damn thing in eight years almost – note, this doesn’t mean I am sticking up for Obama’s fiscal irresponsibility either by the way.
Also, country boy, you noted that Reagan was precieved as a right winger by the Iranians and that is why they were so scared of Reagan that they let the hostage go right after he took office. I don’t know if you have had the opportunity to pick any history books or maybe a newspaper since…February 1981 or so, but apparently it was an arms deal (and the U.S. saying “well, O.K. I guess we will negotiate” with terrorist that got the Iranians to let the hostage go) not some inexplicable fear that Reagan was a “right winger.” The google key words you may wan to consider are Iran and contra, maybe scandal and arms deal.
I actually like Reagan on certain issues, but hate the memorialized ditto dead heads who don’t realize he was not Rush Limbaugh incarnate.
Lastly, Mande, I will take issue and agree that Reagan can’t be directly blamed for the judicial opinions of the Justices he nominated – and people often forget that liberal legal reasoning sometimes leads to “conversvative” results and vice-versa. Liberal and conservative judicially speaking have a vast difference than policatlly speaking.
By Not Sayin', Just Sayin' February 2, 2010 at 9:46 pm
To avoid the likelihood that I would stab my eyes if I read anything this absurd again, I bid FITSNews adieu. It has at times been interesting, but never dull. Peace out!
By countryboy February 2, 2010 at 9:50 pm
Silence Dogwood – Iran Contra as I recall, was a deal to free a different set of hostages, held by Hezbollah in Lebanon, not the hostages held in Tehran I referred to.
By Mike at the beach February 2, 2010 at 10:17 pm
Genomic- Small pox blankets?! Really? Tell me I’m just missing the sarcasm in your tone and that you’re not buying into that bit of WASP self-loathing…
By James the Foot Soldier February 2, 2010 at 10:29 pm
Mande,
Interesting snippets of President Reagan’s years. Failing to mention the democrat party was in the majority for most of President Reagan’s years skews the discussion.
Not one post mentions the MALAISE that greeted President Reagan as he was sworn into office. Shall we rattle off those snippets:
Unemployment from the Carter Great Recession = 10%
Interest rates = 18%
Inflation = 12%
And President Obama and the democrats whine about the cards they were dealt??!!:
Unemployment = 6%
Interst rates = 5%
Inflation = 0%
Gimme a freakin’ “it’s so hard” break.
You bet Sandra Day O’Conner turned into a disappointment. Justice Scalia on the other hand more than makes up for that mistake.
Cold war (go to youtube and listen to President Reagan’s speech at the Brandenburg Gate – that my dear is the greatest speech of my lifetime):
United States 1
Soviet Union 0
US Olympic Hockey Gold Medal
Unite States 1
Soviet Union 0
President Reagan’s presidential ranking = top 10 (if not top 5).
By Mande February 2, 2010 at 10:29 pm
Silence -
Believe me when I say that I appreciate the gravity of your compliment.
About NVB’s “Mande Wilkes Award” . . . as the distinguished recipient of said honor, I hope you’ve found doors opening to you.
BIN -
Put in a good word for me at Cagney’s, will ya?
-Mande
By Liberty For Me February 2, 2010 at 11:06 pm
OK….My posts have been on Regan and his conservative actions.But people keep talking about the economy.How much of the economy had to do with Reagan????How much was Paul Volcker?Why did we have high interest rates to start with???Because Nixon took us off the gold standard and starting printing funny money to fund the bullshit Vietnam invasion.
Presidents can make a difference with tax changes.But printing money since Nixon is the reason for all the boom and bust.Not Reagan’s tax actions directly.The high intrest rates are the only thing that brought us back…..Now Bush got us much deeper than Nixon and Obama is piling on as fast as he can.They wont be able to raise intrest rates high enough to save us this time.
By Calhoun Fawls February 2, 2010 at 11:51 pm
Yep, I saw it coming…the self professed purists call Reagan a RINO. What’s next? Goldwater was a RINO as well? Your ignorance of history is astounding. Believe it or not, politics did not start when HOward Rich started writing checks.
By OhNoNotAgain February 3, 2010 at 12:49 am
Another Reagan-George H.W. Bush thing that people seem to get wrong.
Sure Reagan gave a great speech at the Gate.
The wall started crumbling on 41′s watch.
On Nov. 9, 1989, the wall started coming down.
41 inaugurated January 20, 1989.
I’m not saying Reagan had nothing to do with it. Just saying, when it actually had a real result, Reagan was in California. I did love the guy. Just like facts more.
By Silence Dogood February 3, 2010 at 7:08 am
Country Boy,
the Bowland amendments were not passed until after the Tehran hostages were released. Therefore, the illegality of the dealings in 80-81 were not really as much at issue, BUT if you will note William Casey (CIA) and Robert Carter, the deputy director of Ronald Reagan’s presidential campaignm, had dealings with Iran since the outset for the purpose of easing tensions with Israel and Iran for the sale of weapons for the purpose releasing those 52 hostage of which you wrote. The only “conspiracy” theory behind the 1980 “October Surprise” was HOW it happened – the thought being that G.H.W. Bush as VP slot on the ticket and former head of the CIA in 1977 used his contacts to (a) broker the deal and (b) make sure the hostages wouldn’t be let got until just after the inauguration. While that (and Bush I’s part in the matter) may only be speculation – the fact that it was done is pretty widely accepted now, and I think the evidentiary support is pretty well founded. It is part of the history of the Iran Contra scandal which did not begin in 1985, but likley in late 1979 or mid 1980. The specific arms for hostages deal and the 1986 November revelation which led to the Oliver North hearings came in the wake of the initial 1980 scheme to release the orignial hostages.
Mande
Thank you. Life after winning the award has changed significantly of course, and at times I wish I could turn back the clock and just go back to the more simple days before I won. I like to think the money and fame has not changed me, and I still try to make smart ass anonymous comments on S.C.’s political blogs when I can. For the record I actually did meet up with NVB for the promised lunch. Like Bobby Fisher, I am going back into seclusion now unless Borris Spassky comes back out for another challenge.
By Toyota Kawaski February 3, 2010 at 8:54 am
Man-D Coco Butter please
By LGB February 3, 2010 at 2:44 pm
Remember that Democrats controlled the legislative branch of government during Reagan’s tenure. In order to achieve anything during his precidency, of course he had to reach across the aisle and compromise with Democrats. Barack Obama could probably learn something from Reagan’s ‘post-partisan’ approach.
What makes Reagan’s precidency a decidedly conservative movement were the transformative steps his administration took in changing government’s relationship with the supply side of the economy. This of course led to 25 straight years of economic growth, something unprecedented in modern economics.
As far as the government growth that occurred during the Reagan years, we have to remember that Reagan’s plan was to grow government at a slower rate than the economy. Reagan succeeded at this goal.
Did Reagan raise taxes? Keep in mind that it is the legislature who controls the country’s purse strings. Also, The tax increases came later in the Reagan years, after the economy had recovered from Jimmy Carter’s trainwreck of a presidency. Maybe Obama could learn something from Reagan here. You don’t raise taxes during a recession.
The author of this blog is engaging in clear and obvious spin.
By T4 February 5, 2010 at 4:43 pm
Mike at the beach,
Right…The Soviet Union gave up their 50 year goal to rule the world because your company got some bullets..Way to go, Simpleton. David Hasselhoff was there as well, but I wouldn’t trust him to ‘learn me’ in policies of the Cold War.
The Soviet Union’s spending and global agenda sapped it, which led to it’s demise, and you know it. The Soviets defeated themselves. If there was a list that triaged events leading up to the Soviet fall, Reagan would likely be number 5, 011. Sorry to bust the bubble, but Reagan was simply at the right place at the right time.
Mande, thank you for the article. This site could use more reality checks such as this one.
By Jon e Bonsignor February 10, 2010 at 11:22 pm
Mande..You have to be joking with your monicker for Reagan as a Rino. Where on this good earth do you come up with such a misrepresentation of alluding to a Republican/Conservatives icon as a Republican In Name Only? The connotation of what is meant by Conservative is a nonsequitar.. Everyone has a meaning for the term. Pray tell… Ms Mande how would you rate Pres Reagan as opposed to Pres Eisenhower insofar as to being a Conservative? My dear young idealist; when rating a President such as Reagan remember the following; the period of time changes, GNP is like the weather, world events play a key role, wars hinder growth, modernization, inventions, and the environments all make up the character of an economy. So in your commentary with respect to Pres. Reagan not being a true Conservative I suggest you re think your theory. However I respect you for what you wrote BUT I don’t fully agree with you…jeb
By Politijim September 25, 2011 at 11:51 pm
Perhaps you should get a permit before attempting to use statistics in arguments. Your outcomes are correct but you are either woefully ignorant of his philosophy or intellectually disingenuous.
What you left out:
1. The Democratic congress promised him $2 in cuts for every $1 in tax increases. As we saw with the ObamaCare debacle, politicians lie and they ended up tripling spending. In his memoir he was explicit in his anger for Tip O’Neil and company and his own naivety to believe they would enact their cuts.
2. Yes – real economic growth grew an AVERAGED of 3.2% for 8 years and percentage of revenue (as a function of GDP) DROPPED from 19.6% to 18.4 WHILE TRIPLING GOVT REVENUES. So as a % of tax collected – he actually kept govt about where it had been with Carter. Again, he lamented having to make a deal with the Democrats to get the economy going and not shut down DOE. His principle to cut never changed. But he had political realities.
3. Again. He was promised in Simpson Mazzoli that border security would be tightened as would increased pressure on business which the Democrats (and some Republicans) completely ignored. Both Simpson AND Reagan were heart broken that they ‘bought’ the lie from the Democratic congress that vigilance would remain. Reagan believed in LEGAL immigration (as do all Republicans).
4. You are an absolute idiot if you believe Reagan approved of the pro-abortion bent of judges appointed by he and Bush 1. When voter sentiment was 60%+ pro-abortion, he cared less about what it would cost him politically to protect the unborn child.
Part 1 economic facts: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1120
Like I said. Best for you to stay away from actual intellectual arguments until you learn to be honest. I’d hate for you to look this foolish a second time.
By ReaganTMan October 26, 2011 at 9:10 pm
In follow up and support of what Politijim posted, Reagan like all presidents don’t get their political philosophy rubber stamped by Congress. Reagan’s positions were conservative. By basis of the Mande’s logic, George W. Bush grew entitlements, yet he advocated social security reform that was shot down in Congress. His energy proposals were, too. By basis of the logic, Barack Obama is a tax cutting conservative because he cut the payroll tax and continued the Bush tax cuts knowing all along that Congress would have overridden a veto had he pressed against them. Does that make Obama a DINO?
Reagan’s biggest accomplishments, tax cuts and increases in defense spending came at a price. He had to buy into bad faith deals by Democrats to get it done. Obama’s biggest accomplishment, ObamaCare, also came at a price. Congress to this day will not pass anything Obama asks it too.
Governing is not as easy as it looks. Sarah Palin passed bi-partisan legislation in Alaska only to have the legislature turn their backs on her as soon as she articulated her conservative views on the national stage. She was mired in frivolous ethics complaints and later resigned to avoid personal bankruptcy and disruption of the state’s business. You can go back and call her a RINO, but the fact is politicians act in the best interests of the people and must deal with legislation pragmatically. Everyone from Obama to Reagan did it.
Now here’s another one. Bill Clinton presided over an era of balanced budgets and welfare reform. He was adored by the Left, yet went along with the Republican proposals in Congress. When you see what Bill Clinton actually believes in, do you really think he’s as much a conservative as Reagan is a RINO?
I’ll stop now, otherwise I’d have to do a 3 credit political science course, and there’s not enough space here to do that.