Getting tired of hearing how pathetic the GOP contenders are? So is Michael Medved. Was 2000 so much better? 1996?
Of course, in any crop of GOP candidates from any year in history, one could go through the list and quickly disqualify all of them. Concerning Ronald Reagan in 1980, for instance: you could say he was too old (nearly 70), too right wing, too “Hollywood” (with suspicions of dyed black hair), divorced, too simple-minded – a “dummy actor” turned two-term governor with no foreign policy experience whatever, but who somehow became one of our greatest presidents.
We now look back on that Reagan campaign for the nomination as the last great group of contenders for the GOP nomination, with the former California Governor finally triumphing over former CIA Director (and his ultimate running mate) George H. W. Bush, former Senate Minority Leader Howard Baker, Senator Bob Dole (yet again), former Texas Governor (and former Democrat) John Connally, and two obscure House members from Illinois –Phil Crane and John Anderson.
The only reason this list of candidates sounds more impressive than the roster of today’s contenders is because it includes the name of Reagan – and we know how he turned out for his party and for his country. But Republicans can only damage our chances for the future if we dwell too obsessively over the glories of the past.
So, other than our undying love for Ronald Reagan and failure to find his younger, electable clone, why have Republicans grown so pessimistic about the GOP field? Medved says there are three reasons: the stature gap, Dems are more excited about their candidates, and “too many Indians.” Note that his reasons do not include “because this year’s field does, in fact, suck.”
Read the entire article at Townhall.