Realism on Reagan legacy

Charles Krauthammer:

Major grumbling among conservatives about the Republican field. So many candidates, so many flaws. Rudy Giuliani, abortion apostate. Mitt Romney, flip-flopper. John McCain, Mr. Amnesty. Fred Thompson, lazy boy. Where is the paragon? Where is Ronald Reagan?

Well, what about Reagan? This president, renowned for his naps, granted amnesty to 3 million illegal immigrants in the 1986 Simpson-Mazzoli bill. As governor of California, he signed the most liberal abortion legalization bill in America, then flip-flopped and became an abortion opponent. What did he do about it as president? Gave us Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy, the two swing votes that upheld and enshrined Roe v. Wade for the last quarter-century.

The point is not to denigrate Reagan but to bring a little realism to the gauzy idol worship that fuels today's discontent. And to argue that in 2007 we have, by any reasonable historical standard, a fine Republican
field: One of the great big-city mayors of the last century; a former governor of extraordinary executive talent; a war hero, highly principled and deeply schooled in national security; and a former senator with impeccable conservative credentials.

So why all the angst? If you'd like to share just a bit of my serenity, have a look at last Sunday's Republican debate in Orlando. It was a feisty affair, the candidates lustily bashing each other's ideological deficiencies -- Mike Huckabee called it a "demolition derby" -- and yet strangely enough, the entire field did well.

McCain won the night by acclamation with a brilliant attack on Hillary that not so subtly highlighted his own unique qualification for the presidency. Citing his record on controlling spending, he ridiculed Hillary's proposed $1 million earmark for a Woodstock museum. He didn't make it to Woodstock, McCain explained. He was "tied up at the time."

How do you beat that? McCain's message is plain: Sure, I'm old, worn and broke. But we're at war. Who has more experience in, fewer illusions about, and greater understanding of war -- and an unyielding commitment to win the one we are fighting right now?

Giuliani was his usual energetic, tough-guy self. He fended off attacks on his social liberalism with a few good volleys of his own -- at Thompson, for example, for being a tort-loving accessory to the trial lawyers -- and by making the fair point that he delivers a conservatism of results. His message? I drove the varmints out of New York City -- with their pornography, their crime and their hookers (well, a fair number, at least). Turn me loose on the world.

...

Reagan will not be know for his accomplishments on the social issues, because there are few accomplishments in that area. He will be known for standing up to the Democrats and the Soviets to defeat communism and end the cold war. That is something that every Democrat though impossible.

Those same Democrats though it was impossible to destroy the mob in New York city and then tame the cities crime and financial problems. Rudy Giuliani did it over the Democrat's objections too. The point is that the President has the ability to accomplish certain things and one of the most important is in the area of national security and everyone of the top Republican candidates can run rings around the Democrats on that issue. Winning this war will do much more for our long term security and prosperity than anything on the Democrats' agenda.