Reagan was a 2 time Governor of California and was the clear frontrunner for the GOP nomination in 1980.

While there was a feeling that Reagan could be Goldwatered in the 1980 campaign, to think Newt is comparable in political ability, that the country is the same (hint less white people now) is to simply want to think something, as opposed to think about the question.

I was pointing out what's happened to American politics since Reagan's election, what that election meant.  

My disappointment with that line is that it obscures reality.

Further, I don't believe Reagan compromised as much as he reacted.  After his early tax cuts resulted in a huge deficit he signed a tax increase into law.  That's not so much compromising as it is reacting.

He worked out deals with Tip O'Neill, but remember Democrats held onto the House (average margin 76 seats)during Reagan's entire Presidency and his widest margin in the Senate was 8 seats and after the '86 mid-terms Democrats held the Senate by 10 seats.

It was also a transition time when the center of American politics just started a move to the right.

Democrats still had enormous power in Washington.

And we would not have Sotomayor or Kagan on the court right now.

That's not a unicorn, that's pretty obvious.  Now sure, we might have a 90something year old Stevens instead but I consider the young blood a plus since you can't predict future elections.

I mean, the members of the council were hand-picked by the president, no?  Seems hard to imagine that they were chosen because somehow they don't share Obama's general philosophy, doesn't it?

Kind of like how people keep trying to avoid accepting that Tim Geithner isn't where he is, making the decisions he's made and is making, because he and the president are on opposite ends of an economic world view.

Given the damage they caused during the previous decade, the Republicans portend disaster for the country, were they to regain the levers of power.

I wont speak for Anne, but this is where I have trouble wrapping my head around it. They are doing that damage anyway because existing dem leadership, obama in particular, has accepted their argument. I'm perfectly fine with lesser of two evils voting in a general sense. Generic Dem A is better than Generic Repub B.

But these aren't generic, non-specific candidates.

As Anne has pointed out the course Obama is taking, and the arguments he is presenting, are under Republican framing. He is out there with them selling how the deficits and spending are the top priority and how to get the economy going again. Just recently the payroll taxcut debate is another example.

Congress will not be Dem controlled, and best case will be just barely split party control. The moment for a democratic agenda is gone. So a President who has been itching for compromise will finally have his opportunity to do so, without fear of losing dem support, or reason to play for anything other than another historic moment- like his failed grand bargain.

SO while I can see the damage done if a Bachmann, or Paul had won, I struggle to see Romney in that same light. With Obama out of office Democrats can be democrats again, and we can put a stop to the dilution of party principles.  

Lesser of two-evils is a short term solution that ignores the long term damage being done. It is a valid strategy to prevent some nut from obtaining control. It should not be the default voting strategy for every election. This isn't some hypothetical test with blank candidates.

I do not see what there is to fear in a Romney presidency. What could a moderate Romney (playing for centrist support with a tea party to play off of) sign onto, that Obama (compromiser in chief) would somehow protect us from?

And I agree. Desperation. This is a depression that has not been reported in the press.

I think we'll see where the GOP party powers stand in the next couple weeks. If they feel it's a no-chance throwaway Newtie may get in. If they feel there's a real opp to beat Obama, it's Mittens.

what happens then is anyones guess.  but its going to be fun.