Replies

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE:

THE REAGAN PRESIDENCY FADES INTO IT'S TWILIGHT
CQ Weekly October 17, 1987

. . . It was vintage Reagan: flinty-eyed, sure of his aces. The terse words evoked the "make my day" challenge he had once used to wither Democratic talk of tax increases.

But this time it boomeranged. BORK'S nomination quickly plunged toward a resounding and stunning defeat, and much of the commentary that followed had the pall of a post-mortem on Reagan's political career.

This was not just any lost cause. It had been Reagan's self-proclaimed "No. 1 domestic priority." And it had been a cause that most thought Reagan could have won -- and should have won.

The label of "lame duck" which some had tried to paste on Reagan just days after his landslide re-election in 1984, seemed at long last to stick. Reaganism . . . now clearly seems to be a spent force.

. . . "It's variable when lame-ducking begins," notes Nelson W. Polsby, professor of political science at the University of Califronia at Berkeley. "With Reagan, you would have thought it would be later. But it began with Iran-contra."

Following revelations of arms sales to Iran . . . Reagan's Gallup Poll ratings took a 23-point nose dive. It was said to be the most precipitous decline in a president's approval rating since Gallup began asking questions.

. . . Democrats were quick to cite Reykjavik as evidence that Reagan was out of touch with, even uncomprehending of, the details of his administration.

That portrait was vividly reinforced by the Iran-contra revelations and even by the Bork episode, in which Reagan lost not only his confrontation with the Senate but his control of the situation. He stood by seeming helpless while a defeated Bork refused to withdraw, prolonging the embarrassment and delaying the choice of another nominee."

. . . Failing in the legislative branch, many social-agenda conservatives have come to see Reagan's choices for the judicial branch as their hope. After all, decisions from the bench -- particularly the Supreme Court -- have been their nemesis.

"The failure on this (Bork) nomination is very significant," says Rep. Vin Weber, R-Minn. "This is where the President (was supposed to) deliver on the social agenda." . . . "

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm . . . The more things change, the more they stay the same! And, oh yea, polls mean so much in determining a President's legacy -- NOT!!

Overall, a Yawnfest.

42% among National adults = 45% among likely voters.

Bush had 45% among Likely voters in the Rasmussen poll in 2004.

He recieved 62 MILLION votes.

Only a detestable lib who has the attention span of a ferret and the memory bank of a gnat would look at a Rasmussen poll of national adults and chirp.

During 2002, 2003 and 2004, Rasmussen only did polls of likely voters with side samples of national adults as a comparison. Had he used the national adult sample as his top sample, Bush would have hit as low as 40% in Rasmussen during 2004, when Bush hit 43% among likely voters in late May 2004.

I prefer to be an optimistic conservative. I look at my ranks of voters. In 1996, I had a list of two people who I looked at to vote at election time. For most of my life it was myself. I voted. Then I got a list of family members who never voted and friends in 2000 at about 30. In 2004, it hit 55. It continues to grow and the ranks have not fallen.

Enthusiasm may be low among thumb sucking libublicans, but reality turns in favor of the GOP in 2006.

Democrats look to their future voter ranks and see a stream of fetal runoff that's 32 years long.

45% approval among likely voters is pretty damn good considering the news bildge.

I trust that Rasmussen is correct as usual, but only a fool would look at the last month of polling and see anything but a range of 45% to 52% among likely voters and cringe.

Take the long view.

Be a true conservative.

I do not worry.

I hold ranks and fight and win.

The 2005 bildge flows like it did last year and the year before.

Perspective, my fellow conservatives.

45%, ain't so bad.