Replies

For most of Reagan's two terms, he had to deal with an overwhelmingly Democrat Congress. His tax cuts doubled revenue to the Treasury, but Dem spent $1.83 for every dollar that Reagan's cuts brought in.

A lot of Reagan's spending was to rebuild the military and to win the Cold War without firing a shot. Peace through strength and outspending the commie bastards worked to the world a safer and better place.

Reagan was not perfect. His amnesty was one of the most egregious policies, but it should have served as a warning not to do it again. Sadly Senor Jorge Arbusto wants to emulate Reagan's biggest downfalls, but not his greatest successes.

Exactly ... Reagan made tactical moves/concessions on "lesser" issues to gain support for the "big" issues (destroying Soviet Communism being at the top of the list).

In many respects, I see "Senor Jorge Arbusto" emulating this. The biggest current issue out there right now is the war against Islamist extremism (aka the GWOT). The biggest long-term issue out there is the direction/makeup of the Judiciary and SCOTUS. Concessions on spending and immigration are for Bush exactly what they were for Reagan ... tactical maneuvers.

Allowing the Dems to control one (let alone BOTH) Houses of Congress would be disasterous ... if only for what the inevitable investigations (backed by subpoena power) would do to the GWOT. Beyond that, while we all know what control of the Senate would allow Dems to do to Bush Judicial nominees, it's also probable that a win in the House alone would make a continuing Dem Senate minority all the more intransigent (as well as giving aid/comfort to the Senate RINOS/Gang of 14 members).