Replies

You know absolutely nothing about Reagan or the history of the conservative movement in America over the last 50 years. And your rhetoric proves that for certain.

>>>>I repeat, Bush at his WORST gave us better numbers in Congress than Reagan at his best.

Without Reagan getting the ball rolling in the 1980`s, there would have been NO Republican Revolution of 1994. It was Newt Gingrich who brought a GOP majority to the Congress, and it was George W. Bush who lost that majority by not governing as a conservative. Newt led the GOP to an historic vicory in 1994 by building on the Reagan record of advancing CONSERVATISM. Not through some status quo nonsense to advance more LIBERALISM. The Contract With America was a success. The Reagan Revolution was a success. The Bush agenda has failed.

Dubya handed the Democrats control of the Congress, and without a return to a more conservative policy agenda, the GOP has no chance of retaking the Congress anytime soon. And the 2008 race for the WH looks like a lock for the Democrats at this point.

>>>> .... you completely dodge the fact ....

LOL I dodged nothing. You're attempting to make Bush43 look better after an historic political defeat, by taking pot shots at the Reagan legacy. Fine. The truth of the matter is crystal clear. Bush is no Reagan. Period. Never was and never will be. Reagan was a conservative. Bush is a moderate. The record speaks for itself.

"You know absolutely nothing about Reagan or the history of the conservative movement in America over the last 50 years. And your rhetoric proves that for certain." Oh baloney! I am as familiar with Reagan and the history of the conservative movement as most. I have his 'A Time For Choosing' speech endorsing Goldwater on tape. I remember hearing that speech for the first time and marveling at how his words are still relevant today. Unfortunately, words and ideals cannot always be carried out into legislation. Reagan was honest and practical enough to understand that. Unfortunately, you are not. I'm honest about Reagan, while you continue to repeat the idealized version.

"Without Reagan getting the ball rolling in the 1980`s, there would have been NO Republican Revolution of 1994. It was Newt Gingrich who brought a GOP majority to the Congress, and it was George W. Bush who lost that majority by not governing as a conservative. Newt led the GOP to an historic vicory in 1994 by building on the Reagan record of advancing CONSERVATISM" Newt led the GOP to victory by NATIONALIZING the election with conservative ideals -- something the current crop failed to do. And the fact that the opposing party typically gains in midterms and turnout was low -- under 30%-- certainly helped matters.

"Dubya handed the Democrats control of the Congress, and without a return to a more conservative policy agenda, the GOP has no chance of retaking the Congress anytime soon." "Dubya" didn't hand the Democrats anything. As a matter of fact, the democrats were supposed to have gained seats in 2002. What was historic was that the Republicans GAINED seats in 2002, under "Dubya". Republicans lost control of Congress because Democrats were able to motivate their side to the polls through opposition to the war. Meanwhile, Republicans were not able to motivate their side to the polls thanks, in part, to their own corruption. We "spotted" the democrats 10 seats on corruption/ethical issues alone. And while there certainly were those who stayed home to "punish" Republicans for not being conservative enough (and that indeed cost us the election), that doesn't explain the loss of Santorum and Hayworth does it?

"And the 2008 race for the WH looks like a lock for the Democrats at this point." Yeah right! And 2 years ago, the Democrats were pronounced dead! I'm on record as saying if Republicans eventually have to lose, I'd rather see it now than in '08. The democrats are currently under control of the far left radicals. It was their rage that fueled this election and it will be their undoing. This election has given false security to left wing nuts who are going to nominate Hillary and, thereby, sink the democrats for '08.

"LOL I dodged nothing." You didn't? So amnesty for illegals is the "Reagan conservative" thing to do? Increasing the deficit is the "Reagan conservative" thing to do? Looks like Bush is 2 for 2 in the Reagan conservative model there! Raising taxes on social security is the "Reagan conservative" thing to do? I guess Bush failed that one because he tried to do that silly "liberal" privatization of social security! I suppose appointing that great icon of judicial conservatism Sandra Day O'Conner is the "Reagan conservative" thing to do!

"You're attempting to make Bush43 look better after an historic political defeat, by taking pot shots at the Reagan legacy. Fine. The truth of the matter is crystal clear. Bush is no Reagan. Period. Never was and never will be." No, I'm being honest about both of them and it is the liberals spinning this as an "historic" defeat. There was nothing "historic" about it. Was it devastating? You bet! But it wasn't "historic" The only thing historic is that Bush actually gained seats in the last midterm. Or is that great conservative icon, Ann Coulter, lying when she called the victory "paltry" and labels those who made a big deal of it ignorant of history? I am not taking "pot shots" at the Reagan legacy. I am stating FACTS. Reagan was a pragmatist. You people want to rewrite history and pretend he was a conservative who never went against his principles and it just isn't true. Reagan is no Reagan -- at least not the Reagan you dreamed up in your head. No politician is ever going to live up to an ideal that doesn't exist and never has. The one clear advantage Reagan had is his ability to communicate and articulate his ideals -- even if he couldn't always stand by them.

"Reagan was a conservative. Bush is a moderate. The record speaks for itself." OK, so for the "record" --- increasing taxes on social security, increasing spending, providing amnesty for illegals, signing abortion into law in California and appointing moderate judges, and pulling the Marines out of Beirut speak to a "conservative" record. Thanks for clearing that up!

If people like you want to undermine your own mental happiness pining away over something that never existed -- much like someone who squanders his chance a real happiness in life because nothing lives up to his dream girl in high school -- that is your choice. 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!