Democrats Continue the Highjack of the GOP Legacy

by lewwaters

I’ve lost count of how many times liberal Democrats have bashed the Republicans for being mean-spirited, racist, cold hearted, evil and just the worst sort of people to ever exist on the face of the earth. Every election or whenever faced with a major piece of legislation they wish to promote, Democrats pull out the race card, the homosexual card and in spite of calls for civility, engage in some of the worst condemnations imaginable of conservatives and Republicans.

Listening to Democrats, especially since the 2008 elections that saw Barack Obama installed at the helm of the nation, the first ever Republican president, Abraham Lincoln was actually a strong liberal Democrat. Dwight Eisenhower, who led Allied Forces to Victory in World War Two and who was president during the 1950’s was really a strong liberal Republican.

And perhaps the strangest of all of their highjacking is after heavily bashing of Ronald Reagan during his time in office and since, he too is being embraced as more of a liberal Democrat.

It has even been said by liberals, “Obama is more of a Reagan/Eisenhower Republican than a Truman Democrat.”

Race huckster columnist Leonard Pitts Jr. even wrote a column titled Reagan wouldn’t recognize — or like — today’s GOP.

Perhaps in regards to their lack of spine today, he might be on the right track, but that is not what Pitts is saying. No, he is actually condemning Arizona’s Republican Jan Brewer because she had the audacity to wag her finger in the Lord High Mighty Barack Obama’s face and it was caught on camera. Blasphemy!

Pitts, like all of the rest of the hucksters bowing at the feet of Barack Obama forget he is just another man and one who has a history of committing that very sin himself, also caught on camera as seen below with Louisiana Governor Bobbie Jindal, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

No one raised any concerns over those finger wagging incidents.

Pitts continues, “It reminds us that Republicans are no longer about sunshine and can-do. These days, they simply seem cranky and dyspeptic.”

I find that especially ironic as during Reagan’s terms “Trickle down” was coined and used as condemnation of his economic policies. Reagan was very optimistic and restored America’s pride in ourselves after the years of Vietnam, Watergate and the Carter years where the “misery index” was used.

Democrats had no use for President Reagan as seen in this July 1985 Chicago Tribune article, Reagan Tax Plan Gets Bronx Cheer, a May 1985 Time Magazine article Addicted to the Loophole Habit: Reagan’s tax plan and as the late Democratic presidential adviser Clark Clifford did in calling him “an amiable dunce.”

Have they forgotten their outrage over his firing of the air traffic controllers over their ill-advised and illegal strike in August 1981. Even today, the New York Times continues to label that as “undermining the bargaining power of American workers and their labor unions and polarizing our politics in ways that prevent us from addressing the root of our economic troubles.”

As seen in the following video, ABC News correspondent Sam Donaldson continually tried to be a thorn in Regan’s side, but was often chopped off at the knees.

Even Sam Donaldson came to respect Ronald Reagan, but I do not see him claiming he was actually a Democrat.

In the 1956 campaign against Dwight Eisenhower, Democrat candidate Adlai Stevenson promised “a ‘New America’ where freedom is made real for all without regard to race, beliefs, or economic condition ‘basically saying that the Republicans had benefits the rich and not the average American’.”

A great deal mellower than today, but the same accusatory rhetoric we continue to hear.

Democrats did focus much of their attacks in 1952 against Republican Joe McCarthy for his digging out communists who had infiltrated our government and entertainment industry, a call still heard today as Democrats seek any and all methods to taint the very party they now wish to embrace two of the more successful candidates in history.

In virtually every corner you look you will find Democrats bashing Republicans, ridiculing the policies and painting conservatives amongst the vilest beings ever to live. Yet, Democrats for some time now have been embracing the legacy of Ronald Reagan and Dwight Eisenhower in spite of condemning their policies at the time.

Barack Obama has continued many policies of George W. Bush even though he heavily condemned them in the 2008 campaign. Are they so ashamed of their own policies that they feel the need to camouflage their failures and economically damaging policies by embracing Republican policies?

As much as they cry “racist” against Republicans, who actually led the fight for Civil Rights for Black People throughout the history of America, will they ever acknowledge and atone for their own long history of racism in America and stop spreading The Myth of the Racist Republicans?

It seems even Democrats now realize Ronald Reagan and Dwight Eisenhower were right and their liberal policies were wrong.

So why would they encourage voters to vote for them when they can have a real Republican instead? Since even Democrats now promote Republican policies they have long opposed, it seems an admission that the country fairs better with conservative Republicans.

Something voters need to remember come the November elections.

18 Comments to “Democrats Continue the Highjack of the GOP Legacy”

  1. Pitts is an unabashed racist, Lew. And I don’t think the nation is in the mood to listen to the stupid Liberals about anything.


  2. BS. I would like them trying to explain how Reagan “liked” Jimmy Carter so much (Obama is just Jimmy II):

    “”First, we must understand what’s happening at the moment to the economy. Our current problems are not the product of the recovery program that’s only just now getting under way, as some would have you believe; they are the inheritance of decades of tax and tax, and spend”.

    And to Jimmy Carter in the debate “…There you go again …”

    So much BS they are spewing trying to adopt Reagan in their desperation.


  3. His name is Pitts for a reason.


  4. Hey, “Teddy” is my idol as a president. Smart people outshine ideology.

    Today’s political environment of litmus tests, such as abortion, Gay marriage, and anti-tax are decimating the smart people from political participation.

    On both sides…


  5. Where does that fit in with Democrats highjacking and embracing the GOP legacy of Reagan and Eisenhower, Martin?

    Can we expect to see them highjacking, praising and embracing George W. Bush as well in about 20 years?


  6. My point is that politcal parties do not necessarily match up with ideologies. A “Republican,” especially from the past, can have my ideology.


  7. I still fail to see where that fits in with Obama embracing either Eisenhower or Reagan (after the bashing they did against them) instead of embracing either Carter or Johnson.

    Isn’t it strange that we don’t see Obama and Carter arm in arm on the cover of Time?


  8. 1. You’re right about Pitts, and I like the description. He’s not so much a racist as a race huckster. He uses the issue of race to write his meal ticket. As such, he can hardly be taken seriously.

    2. Are they going to embrace that fine Democratic Southern gentlemen President Andrew Johnson?

    They’ve been trying to appropriate Lincoln for awhile now. I’m not surprised they’d be going for Reagan. Poor ol’ Tip must be spinning in his grave!


  9. They tried to use Lincoln until it became common knowledge that Lincoln wasn’t into abolishing Slavery and didn’t think that Blacks should be allowed to marry.


  10. In reality, Lincoln wanted to free the slaves so they could all be deported to South America or back to Africa.


  11. All right, I agree, that Time cover is a bit much.


  12. Is Time still printed? I know their circulation has been in the tank for quite a while. They’re just a Liberal rag anyway.


  13. I’m sure this isn’t the best place to put this comment, but I was at the Ron Paul event today and sort of wondered about your comments in the Columbian. You don’t appear to have written a relevant post.

    By the time I arrive at about 16:10, there was a significant line which I believe would have been at the northern-most railroad bridge, had the line actually been running exactly north-south. I was unable to attend the event, as the crowd exceeded the Hilton’s capacity.

    I’m not surprised to see that that was not reported.

    Lew — given that Ron Paul supports Liberty, why do you not support him?


    Josef, hoping for an extension to the prior ban

    PS – Let’s remember Thomas Jefferson:

    All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.

    A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities.

    Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto.

    PPS: or do you still prefer Kennedy, and his success with 19-year-olds?


  14. “You don’t appear to have written a relevant post.”

    Should actually be:

    “You don’t appear to have written a relevant post on your blog.”


  15. Josef, much to your chagrin, I’m sure, I too was at the event this afternoon and took a photo of the end of like at 4 pm when it began moving. It had at least a block to go to make the rail bridge.

    If you have fallen prey to Ron Paul, I pity you.

    There will be a post coming, including the comparisons of him to Biblical prophets.

    Oh, and I’ll be sure to post the photo I took of the line straight down the sidewalk as well as the dude with the “Boycott Israel” sign.


  16. My apologies, Josef, but I also have a wife and we took the time to go out to eat dinner this evening.


  17. Hi Lew, do you have a restaurant recommendation? I like to try new places.

    I’m always sort of surprised to see someone quoting the Bible as a justification, since the Bible is filled with questionable admonitions:

    Isaiah 13:15-18

    Deuteronomy 13:13-19

    Psalms 137:9
    justification here: not that I agree with their arguement

    Yes, I agree the “Boycott Israel” guy is an idiot. Not sure how that advances your position, and isn’t it ironic that immediately we’re disagreeing?

    What exactly about Thomas Jefferson do you find so objectionable?


  18. There are several good eateries that we frequent from time to time. Tonight we went out to Orchards to Goldie’s Barbecue on Fourth Plain, just west of 164th.

    The only thing I dislike about Jefferson is when people quote him out of context or state how he would speak to further their point of view today.

    Funny, I don’t know how Jefferson even entered this as I said nothing I can recall of him.

    Maybe you are jumping ahead of the post I am preparing?


Leave a Reply. Comments are moderated. Spam & off topic comments will not be approved at Blog Author's discretion. THIS IS NOT A FREE SPEECH ZONE!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: