Posted on 11/11/2006 2:42:16 PM PST by Reagan Man
Didn't think about McClintock once. I don't live in the commie state of Kalifornia. You guys have your liberal Govinator, Ahnold the Kennedy. I'm sure that's satisfying to you leftcoasters.
The fact remains. Bush lost this election for the GOP. Now conservatives like myself, will have to live with higher taxes, an even bigger federal govt, continued welfare state entitlements and the pièce de résistance, amnesty for 15 million illegals. Not to mention a big question mark next to the WOT.
The incompetence exhibited by Bush and his admin, along with Frist, Hastert, Rove and the entire RNC, is quite revealing. Democrats are back in power at the federal level. That may please many of you GOP centrists, moderates and liberals. Conservatives are mad as hell.
Frankly, I think a return to Reagan conservatism is in order.
If that were true, then as with most cosnervatives you'd want to see the GOP return to being the Party of Reagan. Reagan's conservative agenda was a winner for the GOP. Its time you wishy-washy fence sitters renunciate the WashDC-BeltWay status quo politics of Bush&Company.
>>>>"Dubya" didn't hand the Democrats anything.
Another delusional FReeper in total denial. You don't understand the ramifications from Tuesdays historic loss. I guess taking pot shots at the Reagan legacy makes you feel better. LOL
>>>>If people like you want to undermine your own mental happiness pining away over something that never existed....
Never existed?! LOL That tells me right there, you're no conservative. The historic record on Ronald Reagan's Presidency is quite clear. Not perfect, however.
President Reagan won the Cold War, dismantled the Soviet Empire and the communist Eastern Bloc, freeing some 500 million people from totalitarian rule; revived the US economy from the worst conditions since the Great Depression; rebuilt the US military; cut federal income taxes 25% across the board; reduced the top tax rates from 70% to 28%; reduced welfare state and non-defense discreationary expenditures; and reduced federal regulations like no Prez before or since. Reagan`s leadership was extraordinary, winning two historic elections and uniting America behind common goals. Reagan basically halted the march of liberalism in the 1980`s. Unlike Bush43, who embraced liberalism.
Reagan also proposed and advanced the Strategic Defense Initiative, aka."STAR WARS". He negotiated historic reductions in the strategic nuclear weaponry of the worlds two super powers. In the opinion of many people, Reagan should have won the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts in ending the Cold War.
In addition, Reagan was America's first pro-life President ---- post Roe v Wade. Reagan advanced the idea of a right to life amendment to the Constitution that would protect the unborn. In Reagan's famous essay/book, "Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation", he clearly defines his support for a strong right to life agenda.
Like I said, Bush is no Reagan, and the historic facts speak for themselves. Bush`s domestic record has been a failure and the loss on Tuesday was a renunication of Bush`s centrist domestic agenda.
>>>>But when people like you choose to put our country's security at risk, because you can't get something that doesn't exist, you impact us all!
You're a crazy fool. I'm not putting the nations security at risk. That is a whining cop-out of the highest order, but not unexpected coming from a the likes of you.
This thread is about working over the next two years for returning the GOP to being the Party of Reagan, the party of conservatism. You're either with us conservatives, or you're against us.
You, the Arnold groupies and the Rats seem to be delighted.
I suspect we all voted for him. I did. But I still maintain he never had a chance in 2003.
And the backstabbing by Arnold just before the election helped insure there would be none in 2006.
"If that were true, then as with most cosnervatives you'd want to see the GOP return to being the Party of Reagan. Reagan's conservative agenda was a winner for the GOP." Yes Reagan's AGENDA was a winner, but Reagan didn't always follow his AGENDA. Got it? How many times are you going to dodge the fact that Reagan, like most effective politicians, had to be a pragmatist?
"Another delusional FReeper in total denial. You don't understand the ramifications from Tuesdays historic loss." Of course I understand the ramifications. A bunch of whiny, spoiled conservatives who didn't get everything they wanted decided to join forces with a bunch of American-hating leftists to hand power over to the democrats. Now the terrorists are emboldened, just as they were in Somalia. Makes you warm and fuzzy, doesn't it. As for it being "historic", I again refer you to Coulter's column. (Personally, I am not a fan of her style, but she is right about this. She has historical perspective -- you don't.)
" I guess taking pot shots at the Reagan legacy makes you feel better. " I repeat, how is pointing to the FACTS of what he did considered a "pot shot"? Are you taking "pot shots" at Bush when you point of the factual things he has done that you consider to be liberal? Why don't you defend all those great, "conservative" things Reagan did, instead of running away from them and characterizing them as "pot shots". Either they are a part of his record or they aren't. Either they are conservative actions or they aren't. The fact that you continue to dodge, speaks volumes.
"President Reagan won the Cold War, dismantled the Soviet Empire and the communist Eastern Bloc, freeing some 500 million people from totalitarian rule;" No kidding! And he had to do it by increasing spending! Does that sound familiar? Wake up! Bush is in a war, too. You don't need to preach to me about Reagan and the cold war. I was a child of it. I grew up in the eighties as the daughter of a fighter pilot. We were stationed in Germany during his "Tear Down the Wall" speech. My dad was the DO in charge of the bombing on Quadaffi. My parents are from California and have always been Reagan supporters. My dad will tell anyone who will listen that he is a World War III veteran (in addition to Vietnam) and that Reagan won the Cold War. For father's day, I gave him a license plate frame that read: "World War III Veteran -- Reagan Won the Cold War!" When Reagan died, my father was interviewed by the local paper and he described, from his perspective as a military officer, how crucial Reagan was. So please spare me your condescending history lessons. I am well aware of his greatness --- that doesn't mean he was a pure-as-the-wind-driven-snow conservative. He wasn't. He had to make compromises to get things done -- just as any RATIONAL leader would.
I'm also well aware of you laundry list of things Reagan did. He cut taxes and spurred the economy. Gee, that sounds familiar! Of course, Reagan had Carter's mess to clean up. Bush "only" had Clinton's stock market bubble to clean up, compounded by the largest attack on American soil and the largest natural disaster in recent history. Depsite all that, because of his tax cuts, we have an economy that is phenominal. We can kiss that good-bye when Rangel takes away the tax cuts or they are allowed to expire. Thanks, pouting "conservatives."
"In addition, Reagan was America's first pro-life President ---- post Roe v Wade. Reagan advanced the idea of a right to life amendment to the Constitution that would protect the unborn. In Reagan's famous essay/book, "Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation", he clearly defines his support for a strong right to life agenda." And yet he signed abortion into law in California! Imagine that. Either he abandoned his principles to do the pragmatic thing in California, or he "discovered" he was prolife when it was time to run for the presidency. Meanwhile, Bush put the partial birth abortion ban into law. Again, you point to great IDEALS expressed by Reagan, but those are just ideals. The actions aren't always there. Reagan is a wonderful communicator and that was certainly his strength in advancing the conservative agenda. But you people are so caught up in his words and his cannonization, that you fail to acknowledge that his words -occasionally- didn't match his deeds. That is reality and every effective politician has that reality.
"You're a crazy fool. I'm not putting the nations security at risk." Charming! Now you have to resort to name-calling, rather than address the facts. The fact is those conservatives who aided and abbetted the democrats in taking over by sitting out have, indeed, put our nation's security at risk. And, as someone who was raised in Reagan's military, I can guarantee you our national security would have been at the TOP of Reagan's list -- certainly ahead of all the relatively piddly things they are currently pouting over.
"This thread is about working over the next two years for returning the GOP to being the Party of Reagan, the party of conservatism. You're either with us conservatives, or you're against us." Of course I am in support of conservatism. I support what Reagan represented and articulated. What I oppose is the intellectually lazy tactic of wrapping everything up in Reagan and holding our leaders to a standard that DOES NOT EXIST. Reagan was a great leader. He did great things. He also compromised in order to get accomplished what was most important -- national security and a strong economy. In politics, ideological purity is impossible. Reagan understood that --- it is a shame so many of his fans can't understand that. And as long as they hold out waiting for the second-coming of the idealized version of Ronald Reagan, we will continue to struggle.
>>>>Yes Reagan's AGENDA was a winner, but Reagan didn't always follow his AGENDA. Got it? How many times are you going to dodge the fact that Reagan, like most effective politicians, had to be a pragmatist?
That is the whole point. Reagan`s agenda was a WINNER. Bush`s domestic agenda has been a failure, and his last two years in office will determine whether or not his foreign policy will be a success or a failure. No President ever sees their entire policy agenda succeed 100% of the time. However, Reagan was a principled conservative who compromised ONLY as a last resort. Bush has signed off on EVERYTHING the GOP Congress handed him, and he was still looking for more ways to expand the government. Bush has shown his veto pen once. BFD! Bush even signed off on the unConstitutional, McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform.
We have the biggest government bureaucracy and the largest welfare state in our history. All thanks to Bush and a GOP Congress. They attempted to out liberal the liberals when it comes to spending and embracing bigger government. Reagan wasn't as fortunate as Bush has been. Reagan didn't have his party in control of the purse strings --- House of Representatives --- during his Presidency. But Reagan did cut spending as a percentage of GDP by 1.0%. Under Bush, that figure has risen some 2.0%. For the last six years Bush`s party has controlled the entire government. Reagan made the best of what he had and excelled. Bush squandered his GOP majority and LOST last Tuesdays election at a crucial time in history.
>>>>Of course I understand the ramifications. A bunch of whiny, spoiled conservatives who didn't get everything they wanted decided to join forces with a bunch of American-hating leftists to hand power over to the democrats. Now the terrorists are emboldened, just as they were in Somalia. Makes you warm and fuzzy, doesn't it. As for it being "historic", I again refer you to Coulter's column. (Personally, I am not a fan of her style, but she is right about this. She has historical perspective -- you don't.)
You're entitled to your opinion. However, the results of Tuesdays election go well beyond the WOT. Sorry, you'll just have to deal with it. So stop your whining. If Bush had not spent the taxpayers money like a liberal, not expanded the federal welfare state bureaucracy and not promoted liberal immigration reform, I'm confident more conservatives would have come out and voted for Republicans last Tuesday. Also, if Bush did a better job of communicating his agenda to the American people and if he didn't totally reject the media, he wouldn't have become so isolated from Americans.
Lets not forget. The Iraq Study Group, a supposedly bi-partisan group chaired by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Democrat Congressman Lee Hamilton is about to advise Bush that its time to make some serious changes in the battle for Iraq. And before you get all bent out of shape, the Baker-Hamilton group was going to be a reality whether or not the GOP won or lost the election. The truth is, while Bush`s initial response to 9-11 was right, and his overall strategy in the WOT was proper, the tactics currently being employed in Iraq aren't working. Some major tactical adjustments are required in Iraq. We can't have our military personnel being unknowingly killed by IED`s and RPG`s FOREVER. Its time the Iraqi`s stepped up and took more control of their own destiny. I figure the Baker-Hamilton Group will advise Bush that one of his options is to support a federalized, three state solution for Iraq. We shall see.
Btw, Ann Coulter is entitled to her opinion too. And so am I. I say, all things considered, the outcome of Tuesdays election was an historic victory for the Democrats. The Democrats now control Congress. The GOP is OUT. That's part of history, and that makes it a significant HISTORIC event.
I did like this line from Coulter's column: "Even America's greatest president, Ronald Reagan...."
>>>>I repeat, how is pointing to the FACTS of what he did considered a "pot shot"? Are you taking "pot shots" at Bush when you point of the factual things he has done that you consider to be liberal? Why don't you defend all those great, "conservative" things Reagan did, instead of running away from them and characterizing them as "pot shots". Either they are a part of his record or they aren't. Either they are conservative actions or they aren't. The fact that you continue to dodge, speaks volumes.
I'm running from nothing and I'm not dodging anything. No need to. The truth speaks for itself. Reagan is the gold standard for modern day President's, and Bush hasn't measured up to Reagan. Besides, Bush is the current POTUS and that makes him the issue. Not Reagan. Bush has two years left in his term to work on advancing the conservative agenda. Whether Bush works to advance conservative policy is a decision only he can make. We all know what the historic record says about Reagan, and his great legacy remains intact, withstanding your cheap pot shots from here to eternity.
I'd say Reagan was successful 85%-90% of the time. Bush has been successful 50%-60% of the time, at best. I acknowledge the fact that Reagan raised the deficit in order to fund his huge military buildup. Fact. Reagan won the Cold War. Bush has raised the deficit to fund a trillion dollar liberal prescription drug program, double the education budget and fund the largest welfare state in US history. The surplus Bush was handed in 2001 would have paid for the WOT. Outside of his instinctive tax cuts and strong support for social conservative issues, there is otherwise very little that can be considered conservative about Bush`s domestic governing agenda.
Reagan came into office facing economic challenges few Presidents have ever faced. Reagan handled those challenges with a bold economic agenda that included tax reform/tax cuts, reducing the size of the welfare state and getting the economy back on track. Over his time in office, Reagan succeeded in all three policy areas. After Reagan cut federal income taxes 25% across the board, and reduced the top tax rates from 70% to 28%, overall revenue to the government was way down. That meant either agreeing to Democrat demands for raising federal income tax rates or finding other areas to raise revenue from. Reagan chose to raise gas taxes (Highway Revenue Act), some corporate taxes (TEFRA) and to close personal income tax loopholes (TRA of 1986). Bottomline. Both the ERTA of 1981 and the TRA of 1986 were historic policy that made the US tax system operate more effectively and efficiently, while being more fair to America's middle class families. Under Reagan unemployment rates, inflation and interest rates went way down. At the same time, consumer spending, investment and savings went through the roof. The US economy was on a 17 year economic boom.
I fully understand the challenges that Bush faced in the aftermath of the 9-11 attacks. I was born and raised in NYCity and still correspond and visit with family and friends in the Big Apple. I supported Bush`s invasion of Afghanistan and his invasion of Iraq. The Taliban and Saddam had to go. Period. I think we'll be fighting Al Qaeda for the next 50 years, no matter what party controls the government. Btw, I grew up in the 50`s and 60`s. I know all about the Cold War. You're preaching to the choir. I thank your Father for his service. My Father served in WWII and I honor his service too. I honor all the men and women in the military, past and present. You don't have a lock on patriotism.
>>>>>Of course, Reagan had Carter's mess to clean up. Bush "only" had Clinton's stock market bubble to clean up, compounded by the largest attack on American soil and the largest natural disaster in recent history. Depsite all that, because of his tax cuts, we have an economy that is phenominal. We can kiss that good-bye when Rangel takes away the tax cuts or they are allowed to expire. Thanks, pouting "conservatives."
The dot-com bubble was nothing compared to what Reagan faced in 1981. Bush was handed a sound economy, with historic low unemployement, inflation and interest rates. Along with a huge budget surplus. Again, a surplus that could've paid for the WOT all by itself. Instead, Bush decided it was more important to spend the taxpayers money on welfare entitlement programs and grow the federal bureauccracy to levels never seen before in our history. The 9-11 attacks had the biggest impact on the NYCity economy. The national economy wasn't seriously damaged by the 9-11 attacks. OTOH. Katrina was a total screw up by the Feds, state and local government agencies. And the 2001 recession was over by the end of 2001. Yes, Bush`s tax cuts stimulated the economy, along with consumer spending and investment. However, personal savings of Americans has gone south under Bush. At its lowest point since the 1930`s! Not good at all.
Again. Don't be angry with conservatives. Bush lost the election. Bush proved he is a divider, not a uniter. His JA ratings have been in the 35%-40% range for over a year now. The American people rejected Bush and the GOP last Tuesday. Its that simple. Did I like the outcome? Of course not. However, its time to deal with reality, not sit around crying and bitching about it. 2008 is just around the corner and we conservative Republicans have got our work cut out for us. Its time for action.
Back to Reagan now. Reagan's eight years as POTUS trump his eight years as Governor. Just for the record. The abortion bill that Reagan signed into law as Governor of California, was to allow the exceptions of rape, incest and the health/life of the mother. That accounts for roughly 5% of all abotions, and its the same policy PresBush supports TODAY. Reagan never supported abortion on demand, or partial birth abortion either. And Reagan never supported Roe v Wade. NEVER! I know very well that Reagan's words didn't match his deeds all the time. The fact remains, Reagan's rhetoric advancing the conservative agenda and his splended use of the Bully Pulpit, added to his magnificent leadership abilities. Something Bush has failed at consistently.
Let's not forget Reagan's two huge historic landslide victories in the 1980 abnd 1984 elections. The American people loved Reagan. The same can't be said for Bush.
>>>Charming! Now you have to resort to name-calling, rather than address the facts. The fact is those conservatives who aided and abbetted the democrats in taking over by sitting out have, indeed, put our nation's security at risk. And, as someone who was raised in Reagan's military, I can guarantee you our national security would have been at the TOP of Reagan's list -- certainly ahead of all the relatively piddly things they are currently pouting over.
I've addressed the facts. If the shoe fits, so be it. Most conservatives are independent thinkers and don't become infatuated with politicians, as you appear to be infatuated with Dubya. Conservatives don't work with Democrats and they didn't put the nations securtiy at risk either. Bush botched the election by offering America poor leadership at a crucial time in her history. Reagan knew how to lead and he did so, through very difficult times. Bush has faced very diffcult times himself. I hate to say this, since I voted for Bush twice, but Dubya wasn't fully really prepared in many aspects for the job of President. His leadership has been woefully inadequate on domestic policy. Hopefully, he won't capitulate to Democrat demands on foreign policy, in the WOT. That would be an historic disaster.
Lastly. IMO, Reagan's biggest policy error was on the immigration issue. But Reagan didn't support open borders. Reagan said: "A nation without borders is not a nation." Reagan did sign into law the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, granting amnesty to 2.7 million illegals. It specified prosecution and punishment for employers who hired illegals. If that law had ever been enforced, the IRCA of 1986 would have turned out to be what it was meant to be, a one time amnesty deal ONLY. Instead, the Feds lack of enforcement led to an ongoing series of liberal immigration policies under Bush41, Clinton and Bush43, that has led to the 15 million illegals we have living in the US today. And what does Bush want to do? Make the same mistake all over again. Even with the 20/20 hindsight of history on his side.
That is my opinion. Bush is NO Reagan. The GOP needs to get back to being the Party of Reagan. Conservatism wins everytime its tried. The status quo has to go.
>>>>The author's analysis is superficial and trite....
Its only trite to those people who find conservatism boring and unoriginal. In politics, getting back to the basics can signal a breath of fresh air. So, I disagree with you. Rotterman's analysis was a brief summation that hit on all cyclinders. It was a political message and a governing message ---- Conservatism works. Again, Rotterman's objective is to see the GOP move back towards the conservatism of Ronald Reagan.
Most cosnervatives would disagree with you. Conservatives see nothing facile about a return to a policy agenda that gives more respect to the Constitution and individual freedom.
>>>>George W. Bush faced a much more perplexing foreign policy challenge in confronting state sponsored terrorism.
If it was that perplexing, maybe Bush should have not gone into Iraq when he did. Perhaps he should have considered other options. Come on, we don't need excuses at this point. I supported the invasion of Iraq, but its time tactical changes were seriously considered. And the Baker-Hamilton commission will soon give Bush their analysis and suggestions for America's future in Iraq.
>>>>and opposition to Communist domination is what held the Conservative Coalition together.
BULLoney. The Reagan agenda was about a strong national defense, tax reform, limiting the welfare state and support for pro-life issues. And that's exactly what most conservatives want a return to. Not to mention, winning the WOT and enforcement only immigration reform.
We may not have a Reagan approaching from the west at this time, but it doesn't hurt to promote, support and advance a conservative agenda.
"WOW.... you're one angry person. Except you're angry with the wrong people." You're darn right I'm angry. I just watched the American electorate validate Osama Bin Laden's strategy. And, to the extent that the analysis is accurate about conservatives sitting out, I do blame them. (Frankly, I think the conservative spin is a bit over-played. I think plain old scandal and corruption on the part of certain congressmen played a part and I think the main failure was in nationalizing the election. Republicans should have articulated the importance of the election in terms of the WOT and the economy, but the didn't.) That said, if there were indeed Republican voters who sat out because they decided the GOP wasn't conservative enough, thereby putting their petty demands over the security of this country, you're darn right I blame them. I don't ever want to hear one of those people wrap themselves in patriotism or Ronald Reagan again. National Security was Reagan's top priority. And those who pose as Reagan's followers, yet sold our security down the river for the sake of a protest vote, are hypocrites.
"That is the whole point. Reagan`s agenda was a WINNER. OBush`s domestic agenda has been a failure..." Oh OK, so increased spending for Reagan is a winner, but a failure for Bush. Amnesty is a winner for Reagan, but putting up a fence is a failure for Bush. Increasing taxes on social security is a winner for Reagan, but proposed privatization of social security is a failure for Bush. Cutting taxes and increasing revenue was a winner for Reagan, but a failure for Bush. Thanks for clearing that up!
"However, Reagan was a principled conservative who compromised ONLY as a last resort." Oh yeah! I forgot the part about the gun to the head, where he was forced to sign abortion into law. Every executive always has the veto power, unless congress has enough votes to over ride him, so spare me your "last resort" spin.
"You're entitled to your opinion. However, the results of Tuesdays election go well beyond the WOT. Sorry, you'll just have to deal with it. So stop your whining. If Bush had not spent the taxpayers money like a liberal, not expanded the federal welfare state bureaucracy and not promoted liberal immigration reform, I'm confident more conservatives would have come out and voted for Republicans last Tuesday." Of course they go well beyond the WOT, but that isn't the point. The point is the WOT is the issue. No matter how much Republicans want to spin this as a victory for conservatism, the bottom line is the American people have played right into Bin Laden's hands, just as he predicted they would. No matter how you want to spin it, the bottom line is the world sees America as folding like a house of cards and our military is going to have a hard time ever being taken seriously again in our life time. We have just validated the Vietnam/Somalia strategy. Some so-called conservatives KNEW the implications of this election and placed their relatively petty concerns over one of the most pivotal foreign policy junctures in our life time. And then, to top it all off, they (and you) cite increased federal spending and liberal immigration policy -- two things Reagan did -- as your main reasons for "punishing" Republicans and demanding "Reagan" conservatism. Hulllloooo????? If you guys are gonna repeat the "We want to get back to Reagan" mantra, can you AT LEAST pick some issues where Reagan didn't do exactly what you cite as your reason for being angry with the current crop? Sheesh!
"And before you get all bent out of shape, the Baker-Hamilton group was going to be a reality whether or not the GOP won or lost the election. The truth is, while Bush`s initial response to 9-11 was right, and his overall strategy in the WOT was proper, the tactics currently being employed in Iraq aren't working. Some major tactical adjustments are required in Iraq." Of course, but there is a huge difference between re-working a strategy and cutting-and-running. Now, no matter what we do, the world will see it as the American people folding. Bin Laden has proven to his fellow terrorists that, all they have to do is make things uncomfortable enough to inflict a relatively minor amount of casualties and we will turn around with our tail between our legs. We have just validated the notion that terrorism works. Swell!
" The Democrats now control Congress. The GOP is OUT. That's part of history, and that makes it a significant HISTORIC event." LOL! So any election in which the incumbent loses is "historic". Brilliant!
"I did like this line from Coulter's column: "Even America's greatest president, Ronald Reagan...." Why leave out the rest? He LOST seats. That's the whole point. Even a great president like Reagan, in a time of relative peace and prosperity LOST seats. Gee, do ya think the voters were mad at him for not being conservative enough?
"Besides, Bush is the current POTUS and that makes him the issue. Not Reagan." And yet that is the whole point of the article! YOU are the one who introduced Reagan into the conversation. "We all know what the historic record says about Reagan, and his great legacy remains intact," Yes, he does have a great legacy. "withstanding your cheap pot shots from here to eternity." And for at least the FOURTH time you dodge my very valid, honest reflection of the record choosing to run away and call them "cheap pot shots" rather than admit Reagan, despite his great legacy, did many things that compromised his principles. It is irrational to hold politicians to a standard that even Reagan couldn't meet. Why is that so difficult for you to acknowledge?
"The surplus Bush was handed in 2001 would have paid for the WOT." That statement right there illustrates that you are either ignorant of reality or deliberately distorting the facts. The "surplus" of 2001 was an illusion. It was based on tax revenue from inlfated dot com profits. Once that bubble burst, the "surplus" from the revenue generated by the dot coms disappeared. By the time Bush took office, the economy was already tanking and the surplus along with it. Now, depsite the wild spending in congress, the deficit has been cut in half -- 3 years sooner than Bush promised it would -- thanks to a tax-cut strategy he learned from Reagan and Kennedy.
"Reagan came into office facing economic challenges few Presidents have ever faced." No doubt. So did Bush. "Under Reagan unemployment rates, inflation and interest rates went way down. At the same time, consumer spending, investment and savings went through the roof. The US economy was on a 17 year economic boom." Again, the same can be said for Bush. Unemployment is waaaaaaay down. Interest rates were way down, and now hold steady and despite unprecedented consumer spending, inflation is in check. I'm well aware of Reagan's economic success. Again, you're reciting things that are obvious. What does any of that have to do with the FACT that Reagan had to compromise his principles from time to time? Yes, both men had challenges. Both men did a phenominal job of turning things around economically. And BOTH men had to compromise on conservatism. I'm merely asking people to stop holding prospective leaders to an IMPOSSIBLE standard. Reagan, in historical reality, could not live up to Reagan the myth.
"You're preaching to the choir. I thank your Father for his service. My Father served in WWII and I honor his service too. I honor all the men and women in the military, past and present. You don't have a lock on patriotism." Again, you're the one who began the preaching. I was merely explaining to you that I am fully aware of Reagan's historic success in defeating communism. I can appreciate and honor that, as I did with my gift to my dad, without white-washing Reagan's record to pretend that he never compromised conservative principles.
"The dot-com bubble was nothing compared to what Reagan faced in 1981. Bush was handed a sound economy, with historic low unemployement, inflation and interest rates. Along with a huge budget surplus. Again, a surplus that could've paid for the WOT all by itself." I've already explained to you how you are wrong about that, so I won't waste time repeating myself. The economic success we've had , even without 9/11, would be considered outstanding. If you can't even acknowledge that, I really do have to wonder about your intellectual honesty.
"I know very well that Reagan's words didn't match his deeds all the time. The fact remains, Reagan's rhetoric advancing the conservative agenda and his splended use of the Bully Pulpit, added to his magnificent leadership abilities. Something Bush has failed at consistently." No argument there!
"Most conservatives are independent thinkers and don't become infatuated with politicians, as you appear to be infatuated with Dubya." I'm sorry, but that has to be the most laughable statment you've offered thus far! You wanna talk "infatuation"? I'm not the one with a politician's name in my handle! I'm not the one who wrote such mindless school-girl-crush gushing platitudes as: "Reagan was an historic figure of enormous proportions. Someone who comes along maybe once every 100-150 years. Reagan was famous, heroic and legandary." LOL! Did you forget the part about him walking on water? My point is, I'm not the one turning politicians into cult heroes. Reagan was a great man who did wonderful things for the country. That doesn't mean he is above having a reality check on his record. Contrast that with how I talk about Bush. You don't see me gushing all over him. I'm simply drawing comparisons. When it comes to the important issues, like the economy and national security, they hold similar records. When it comes to shortcomings in conservative ideals, like increasing the deficit and being soft on immigration, they hold similar records. The one clear advantage Reagan has is his ability to articulate the conservative message. I'm just asking people to be intellectually honest and to stop putting Reagan on a pedestal that is impossible for him or any other politician to reach.
" Conservatives don't work with Democrats" Reagan did all the time. Ask Tip O'Neill "and they didn't put the nations securtiy at risk either." If they chose to validate the Bin Laden strategy by failing to vote against those in favor of cut-and-run, they most certainly did! "Bush botched the election by offering America poor leadership at a crucial time in her history." No, he offered us the right leadership for the most crucial issue of our time. So-called conservatives decided that wasn't important enough for them. "Hopefully, he won't capitulate to Democrat demands on foreign policy, in the WOT. That would be an historic disaster." He doesn't have much of a choice if congress won't provide the funding. We already have a disaster. The horse is already out of the barn. The Bin Laden strategy has already been validated. And any conservative who chose not to support the Republicans at this crucial time, KNOWING those implications, is responsible.
"Lastly. IMO, Reagan's biggest policy error was on the immigration issue." WOW! Reagan is capable of making an error? Who knew!? "But Reagan didn't support open borders." Neither do the Republicans -- libertarians support open borders. "And what does Bush want to do?" Bush signed the fence bill and apparently that wasn't good enough. People like J.D. Hayworth and Rick Santorum went down, so clearly there is more to the issue. If irrational conservatives really were stupid enough to sit out and punish even people like Santorum, they deserve what they get. Unfortunately, they're taking the rest of us down with them.
"The GOP needs to get back to being the Party of Reagan. Conservatism wins everytime its tried." And ,once again, you conclude with the trite, simplistic platitudes expressed at the conservative cocktail parties. If you want to get back to the ideals of Reagan, I agree. But is is a disservice to everyone to pretend "the Party of Reagan" was pure conservatism.
more ovaltine please.....
The majority of American`s are basically fed up with the events in Iraq. Conservatives are fed up with Bush moving the GOP leftward on domestic policy. That set of circumstances created the GOP`s election loss last Tuesday. Bush wasn't about to pull the troops out of Iraq. However, if Bush had governed as a conservative on domestic policy, the GOP could have weathered the gathering storm that ended in an HISTORIC loss for Republicans. I was preaching that on FR all year long, and I was vindicated in the end.
So, you can whine, cry, bitch, moan and groan all day. It solves nothing. You can continue to take cheap pot shots at Reagan and obfuscate his record and legacy. The facts and the truth of history speak to the greatness of the Reagan Presidency. Like I said, you're anger is misplaced. The vast majority of blame for the GOP losing the election last Tuesday belongs to Dubya. Period!
>>>>And yet that is the whole point of the article! YOU are the one who introduced Reagan into the conversation.
Right. The article is about the GOP`s election loss, the renunciation of the Bush agenda by conservatives, and the need for the GOP to return to being the Party of Reagan. You don't like the fact that conservative voters rejected the Bush agenda. Well, too bad. Get over it. Its time to rebuild the GOP on sound conservative policy agenda. The kind that Reagan and Gingrich advanced.
If you want to remain mad at the world, go for it. If you want to run around with your head firmly planted up your butt, and ignore reality, I can't stop you. If you want to run around FR crying like a broken record, have at it. Now, go find someone else to vent at. When you calm down, and have something relevent to offer the debate, look me up. I'll be around.
About as many times as you continue to take cheap pot shots at Reagan.
>>>>I don't like the fact that some conservative voters put their pet issues ahead of national security.
What you like or dislike is immaterial. The election is over. Deal with it. Besides, your perception of reality is flawed. As long as you look at events through the prism of anger and rage, you opinion will be worthless.
>>>>And you still fail to address why conservatives like Rick Santorum went down in flames, while Arnold remains overwhelmingly popular. This election was more complex than you want to spin it.
When you're ready to check your emotions at the door, maybe you'll be able to comprehend reality. Hint: conservative blue-stater loses, liberal blue-stater wins.
>>>>You go on repeating mindless cliches, awaiting another Ronald Reagan, as if it were the second coming of Christ when the fact is you wouldn't even recognize the second coming of Reagan because the factual Reagan does not reflect the myth you have painted in your mind.
Wrong. That's your dumbass persecption misleading you again. Reagan is no Christ, and Bush is no Reagan.
Grown up already.
I'm just catching up on all your posts. You're good -- and witty!
Interesting that the ACU rating for Santorum was only 88%. Was that a typo, or is the perception of Santorum different from the record?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.