Bowsite.com

He still can say that at some point if he feels that way.

So, what are your thoughts on the fact that Reagan did not endorse Ford at the 1976 Convention, then went on to win the nomination easily in 1980?

"Thus, the optimism of unity within the party exists."

Anyone who thinks there would be "Unity" within the party even with a Cruz endorsement of Trump is wishcasting. Poll after poll has shown that the Democrats have more unity around Hillary than the Republicans do around Trump. I think you attribute more power and influence to Cruz than he has. The great thing about most hardcore Conservative Constitutionalists is that we have the ability to think for ourselves, we don't have to be told when something is right or wrong. I've already said multiple times that even if Cruz endorsed Trump, I still wouldn't vote for Trump. I don't need to know whether Cruz approves or disapproves of Trump in order to form my own opinion.

Since nobody is perfect, there was occasionally some truth in what he said and that was enough to allow trump and the leftist media to take out all other viable candidates much to the satisfaction of leftists of all kinds.

Yep.

He did attack their character. However I highly doubt his voters are voting for him because of his opponents character. So why are they voting for him? Maybe people are hoping for a change.

If he wins. His SCOTUS picks, stance on immigration, 2A (hopefully he keeps his word) are enough for me to warrant my vote.

The case for voting for him now has been accurately stated and re-stated on just about every thread. Posting more of the same hatred and such about it is a waste of bandwidth.

Either you will help Hellary get elected or you won't. End of topic.

See 2008. How'd that turn out.

I was born in 1976, so I wasn't "politically aware" at that point in my life, either. Thankfully, there were video cameras at that time, so "here you go". In my opinion, there are 2 differences between this speech and the one Cruz gave on Wednesday night. First, Reagan was obviously a more naturally gifted speechgiver than Cruz is, and I don't think that's news to most people who've seen them both give speeches. Not terribly surprising, given that Reagan was a professional actor for decades. Second big difference is that Gerald Ford not only personally introduced Reagan before the speech, he introduced him warmly, personably, and called him "my good friend". Given the amount of acrimony I understand there to have been during the 1976 primary campaign, I think that's pretty impressive, especially when compared to the attitude of Donald Trump. It's even more amazing when you consider that Ford was a sitting President and Reagan tried to primary him. How many times has that happened? Reagan talked about Unity, as Cruz did, but there was no explicit endorsement of Ford.

Either you will help Hellary get elected or you won't. End of topic.

No he didn't. No one can watch that video and honestly say that Reagan endorsed Ford any more than Cruz endorsed Trump.

"Cruz is old news"

Excellent. Then you and everyone else here can stop whining and bitching and moaning about him.

He IS old news, and is not relevant now to the Presidential race. He ran, he gave it his best shot, and not enough people voted for him, so he's out.

And if you want to accuse me of attacking him, I confess that I do have issue with him for lying. I thought he was better than that and that's one of the reasons why I voted for him.

An endorsement is an endorsement. That was not an endorsement.

Maybe if we send him a tweet..........

Trump folks have the strategic high ground represented by the nomination. Best to have that convey in the moral high ground as well, if possible, because folks like Josh can't vote for Trump. The best possible outcome for a Trump victory is that they will throw in their lot with the disaffected hopeful.

By his own deficiencies, Trump is trading, by proxy, on the intelligence and integrity of his faithful. If they demonstrate little to none, then there is nothing to woo those who demand it.

https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/07/no-reagan-did-not-endorse-ford-heres-why

No, Reagan Did Not Endorse Ford. Here's Why.

By: Craig Shirley | July 24, 2016

In 1992, a beleaguered incumbent George H.W. Bush staggered into the convention city of Houston. He’d been bullied in the primaries by the American Firster Pat Buchanan and, having finally won re nomination, was faltering badly in the polls to both Democratic nominee Bill Clinton and Independent candidate H. Ross Perot. Former president Ronald Reagan went to Houston on Bush’s behalf, telling the thrilled Republicans in a humid and moldy Astrodome that he “warmly, genuinely, whole heartedly support the re election of George Bush as president of the United States!” And he meant it. Later that year, he campaign aggressively in California for Bush.

Reagan never, ever uttered such a phrase when it came to Gerald Ford in 1976. Not by a long shot. Not at the Kansas City convention and not afterwards in the fall. Nor did he ever campaign for Ford. These are matters of undeniable fact, despite the attempt of some Trump boosters to rewrite history by suggesting that Reagan really did support Ford, and Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas (A, 97%) was alone in not endorsing Donald Trump this time around. History is too precious and important to be rewritten by a few uninformed Trump revisionists at CNN, just to satisfy a new story line.

When a bloodied but unbowed Reagan reluctantly took the stage in Kansas City in August of 1976, he was bitter. Bitter and angry. His very close aide, Lyn Nofziger said of his longtime companion, “To my surprise, Reagan, who is seldom bitter, went to California a bitter man, convinced that Ford had stolen the nomination from him.” The Republican primary battle of 1976 was over, and as far as the nation was concerned, so was Ronald Reagan’s political career. Defeated and fuming, the man who bested and despised Ronald Reagan, asked him to the podium, but it was to show the world a unified Republican Party and not as any expression of kindness on Ford’s part towards Reagan.

Gerald Ford and Reagan differed as much personally as they did ideologically. The détente policies of Henry Kissinger, embraced by Ford, were reviled by Reagan. On foreign policy, Ford thought Reagan was a warmonger who would start World War III. At the lowest point, Ford actually ran television ads with the tagline “Remember, Governor Reagan couldn’t start a war. President Reagan could.” Reagan was fit to be tied, furious with Ford and Nancy Reagan was outraged. It was one thing for a liberal to hurl this awful insult at Reagan but quite another when it came from a member of his own party. Ford has crossed a line but he didn’t care, defending the ad to anyone who would listen.

Ford thought so little of Reagan, he attempted to fan the flames of his own draft campaign committee in the spring of 1980, as the Californian was marching to the nomination, just to stop him. He told reporters that Reagan was “too conservative” to win in the fall.

Ford’s longtime speechwriter, Bob Hartmann, wrote in his book, Palace Politics, how Reagan and Ford just didn’t get along and how Nancy Reagan and Betty Ford couldn’t be in the same room with each other. Nancy Reagan, in her book, My Turn, pretty much confirmed her dislike for the Fords as well. Others like Dick Cheney have also confirmed this unfriendliness.

Reagan got into the 1976 race in part because he was incensed by Ford’s snubbing of Alexandr Solzhenitsyn---at Kissinger’s suggestion----seeing it a knuckling under to Moscow. And Ford’s signing of the Helsinki Accords, which essentially ceded Eastern Europe to the Soviets, but surrendering the West’s interests in the region.

Ford offered one lame excuse after another on why he could not meet with the famed Nobel Prize winning author of The Gulag Archipelago, including conflicts with his daughter’s high school prom and he had to meet with the Strawberry Queen of West Virginia. Reagan welcomed Solzhenitsyn in radio commentaries and newspaper columns, while eviscerating Ford’s spineless conduct.

The depth of their loathing for one another was captured in the events that transpired before Reagan mounted the stage than night in Kansas City. Nancy and Ronnie were content to quietly watch Ford accept his party’s nomination from a crowded skybox above the stage. A quiet dinner with his family was the only event left on the Gipper’s schedule. As Reagan prepared to leave, an anxious and drunk RNC aide approached the Reagan team and asked for Reagan to join Ford on the stage, an offer which Reagan declined. Reagan’s team then received a flurry of calls, practically begging for Reagan to join Ford on the stage. Ford knew he needed unity and that meant getting Reagan on the stage, one way or another. Finally, Ford, in front of tens of thousands of supporters and a live national audience, asked his “good friend, Ron Reagan to come down and bring Nancy.” Only a few minutes before, Tom Brokaw of NBC News asked Reagan if he was going to address the hall that night and the Gipper replied “No.”

A seemingly clever, if not downright devious maneuver by Ford to get Reagan on stage, Reagan had nothing prepared. If he had declined, he would be seen as vindictive and mean-spirited, if he took the stage and made a fool of himself, all the better to solidify support behind Ford. After Reagan declined again and again, finally Ford added the weight of the entire convention hall and national television to his voice. With calls of “We want Ron!” “We want Ron!” and “Speech!” “Speech!” Reagan paused, and then moved slowly toward the stage.

Years later, Reagan, when president, kept a plaque on his desk with the words “There is no limit to what a man can do or where he can go if he does not mind who gets the credit.” He knew Ford was not the man to lead the nation forward, but that was secondary, the greater principle was the conservative movement and the ideals that brought him there. With this, the livid and defeated Reagan took the stage and changed the nation forever. The speech he gave has been documented time and time again as one of his greatest and certainly his greatest extemporaneous speech. In it he celebrated a bold vision of America, without ever mentioning Ford. He never endorsed the man, only stating that we must go forward united. Revisionist Trump supporters are deliberately confusing Reagan philosophy and good manners with an endorsement.

After the delegates voted and narrowly chose Ford, the winner called on the loser by prior agreement. But Reagan has sent word beforehand via Dick Cheney to tell Ford not to offer the vice presidency to Reagan because the Californian did not want to embarrass the president by saying no. On the other hand, Ford was never going to offer it to Reagan, telling Cheney and others, “Absolutely not! I don’t want anything to do with that son of a bitch!”

The next day Reagan met with his staff and again, never mentioned Ford. When asked what the Reaganites demeanor should be towards the Ford people, Nofziger quipped, “Da meaner, da better.” Significantly, none of Reagan’s top aides went to work for the Ford campaign although a couple went to work for their old friend Dole.

As Ford lagged in the polls, Reagan reluctantly agreed to go out on the trail, but he went out for the conservative movement, not the man. He gave a 30-minute taped speech on the Republican and Democratic platforms, but not directly on Ford. Of the four commercials he made for the campaign, three promoted the platform and one did support Ford, but no endorsement. Only at the end did he say something about keeping Ford in his job. He campaigned with Bob Dole, but again, said little to nothing about Ford.

As Ford continued to sink, his team reached out to Reagan again and again. Reagan, in total, campaigned in 25 states, but for down ticket candidates, rarely mentioning Ford, and was even asked to become Honorary Chairman of the Ford Campaign, but he politely declined. When he spoke at a joint fundraiser in Los Angeles, he talked of the platform and of the party, but barely Ford. When even he did mention the candidate, his body language and voice were so visibly tortured that Washington Post reporter Lou Cannon, remarked dryly, “This is not much of an endorsement.”

Indeed, it was no endorsement at all.

In Kansas City, by every estimate, Reagan was finished politically. The only thing he could control was how he said goodbye. He was comfortable leaving quietly but Ford pushed him into a spotlight he never sought. In that moment he chose to go out, not publicly bitter, defeated, or angry but hopeful. He went out affirming “a platform of bold unmistakable colors with no pastel shades.” He chose to leave the stage, not a supplicant to a party line or to an accidental president, but as a principled man affirming a party that had chosen someone else. He knew there was no limit to what this movement could do or where it could go, and it didn’t matter who got the credit. The principle mattered most and the Party and conservatism mattered, not the person.

____________________________________________

Craig Shirley has been hailed from many quarters as one of the leading Reagan biographers, having written four books, hundreds of articles and given hundreds of lectures about the Gipper. He is the Visiting Reagan Scholar at Eureka College, a member of the Board of Governors of the Reagan Ranch and a frequent lecturer at the Reagan Library.

Andrew Shirley is a veteran of the US Navy, a graduate of Marymount and now a Master’s Degree candidate.

This isn't some dictatorship (yet) that can demand loyalty and support from FREE (for the moment) citizens who for whatever reason decline.

In that is the whole obsession with Cruz. Not that it would get him even one vote more if he endorsed, that's not the issue. It's that he didn't take the oath.

He did not get on his knees and kiss Trumps azz like Crispy and so many others... dogs begging for scraps off trumps table. He didn't take the oath.

That is what wicks off trumps supporters. They demand you now support their "winner", take the oath. And can't seem to grasp those demands are actually as off putting as the POS himself. So now in a move their king would approve of... they double down on them. Shame and threaten people to do so. And are shocked that the people they demean don't fall in line and swear the oath as they have. When they should be coming up with real reasons to actually vote for the guy other than he's not as evil a POS as who he is running against. But that is going to be.... a good bit more thoughtful work to put it nicely.

Good luck with that.

Agree, but the reaction is not exclusive to Trump supporters. To be honest and fair, many folks were the same way about Romney and McCain before them. Those people here, especially the ones who weren't Trump supporters to begin with, I think are deserving of the same respect we expect for our desisions. Most of them hold the honest opinion that they must support the republican nominee, no matter who it may be. I respect that, and even admire it to an extent. I happen to think it is a perfect recipe for getting progressively worse and worse nominees to vote for, when you consider that at this point most of the voters allowed to vote in the republican primary do not have or hold the principles or ideals that makes one a republican, much less a conservative.

Then you have several here who really just flocked in when Trump announced, and have been pretty ruthless and vicious to virtually any candidate who opposed him, unless they appeared to be working favorably with Trump to oppose Cruz. I think these are folks who were sold early on the celebrity of Trump, who ignored his boorish behavior, his liberal democrat recent past, and anything else that didn't shine a favorable light on him. I don't believe a majority of them regularly vote republican, much less for conservatives.

Our version of compromise was to lose big or lose not so big.

I can deal with compromise but it would be nice to have that compromise be different degrees of winning.

The current GOP leadership has this down to a science.

"I think I'm going to be able to get along with Pelosi — I've always had a good relationship with Nancy Pelosi," Trump said Tuesday on MSNBC's "Morning Joe," referring to the House minority leader.

"Reid's going to be gone. I've always had a decent relationship with Reid," Trump said, referring to Harry Reid (D-Nev.), the Senate minority leader. "I always had a great relationship with Harry Reid."

Trump said he thought he'd get along with "just about everybody," including Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), likely to be the next Senate Democratic leader, who Trump said he was "close to ... in many in ways."

If I recall... Boner was pretty much persona non grata with this entire forum not just a short time ago.... but I'm told everybody can change, overnight if need be...

maybe we should bring him back now... give him a cabinet position or something as they are.... tight.... and the friend of my friend and all....

http://heatst.com/tech/donald-trumps-russian-trollbots-caught-attacking-lion-ted-cruz/?mod=sm_tw_post

Donald Trump's Russian Trollbots Caught Attacking Lion Ted Cruz

So now you are going to completely adopt and help promulgate the Dem line?

Never figured you for a total Dem hack.

Guess I was wrong.

We can hope that it is a case of the reformed poacher who makes the best game warden.

You didn't read the article, did you?

They need Trump to lose in order to ascend and implement the Seven Mountain's of Nationalism.