Posted on 05/04/2008 1:44:26 AM PDT by MartinaMisc
Will President Bush ever get the respect President Reagan once received?
America knelt in sorrow on June 5, 2004, when Reagan passed away after a decade-long fight against Alzheimer’s disease. The 40th President—the man who revived America’s economy and exorcised the demonic spirit of Soviet communism—was praised throughout the country as a political genius who changed America for the better and a proud leader who rescued the country from cultural and psychological decline. America had a love affair with Reagan, and his passing brought that affair to a cruel end.
It is difficult to envision Bush receiving similar praise when he passes away. This will be caused in part by the relentless anti-Bush propaganda that has caused many Americans to loathe him as passionately as they loathed President Nixon. This will also be caused by Bush’s legitimate failures.
Bush had the potential to match Reagan as one of the greatest Presidents of all-time, but he failed to realize that potential. Reagan was a big-picture thinker: he believed that America, once unrestrained by a bloated federal government, could achieve heights never reached by any other industrialized nation in the world. His goals were tangible, clearly defined, well-reasoned, well-argued.
What was Bush’s goal? “Compassionate conservatism”? Yes, he needed that godforsaken catchphrase to defeat Al Gore in a politically correct era, but “compassionate conservatism” was not a governing philosophy. At times during the 2000 campaign, Bush’s message seemed to be “I can do the job, and I can do the job well.” All fine and dandy—but wasn’t that Gore’s message also?
(Excerpt) Read more at humanevents.com ...
Both Bushes will never be regarded in the same class as Reagan. While they weren’t specifically harmful in the same way Carter was, they do hold a certain loyalty to globalism at America’s expense.
No.
For the life of me, I will never understand his trying to pass the Amnesty bill - twice.
Honestly - was there no one who could sit him down and explain what the hell that bill would produce?
IMHO, Bush will have a legacy whether we choose to honor it or not will pretty much be up to the individual.
After 9/11, it was inconceivable, at least to me, that we could go this long without another major terrorist attack. I believe we have gone this long because of the decisive action Bush took. I know, we didn’t seal the border, but even with an unsealed border, we haven’t had an attack. They didn’t attack because they knew what he’d do if they did. He said he’d go after the Taleban, he did. He said he’d go after Saddam, he did. I think Iran is next on the table, if another attack occurs.
As to Reagan being respected, he was despised by liberals while he was in office, so we’ll see about Bush. But Bush Derangement Syndrome can largely be laid at the feet of Algore. After,Election night, 2000, I told my husband, things will never be the same, we will never again have an election that the Dems do not think was stolen (of course, that is, unless they win, LOL.)
DOES ANYONE REMEMBER 9/11?
Bush is far from perfect, but this article avoids discussion of major elements:
"9/11 Changed Everything!", and no one disagreed with the President that this was the case. Do you understand author? 9/11 changed everything! To directly compare Bush's post-9/11 situation with Reagan's terms is idiotic, or it is to forget our post-9/11 situation and the depths of our, and the world's, despair and anxiety. It can be argued that it actually shows that Bush has brought our country so far back from the brink, so quickly, that our former position and anxiety have been forgotten. Forgotten even to the extent that the MSM have been able to make believe it never happened and therefore make it easy for the American people, and the people of the world, to forget.
- Not to excuse every detail, but many of Bush's non-WOT legislative efforts, and acceptances, had to take second place to holding support for the WOT.
- The nation's economy, already having gone south late in Clinton's term, crashed historically lower on 9/11; has the author forgotten this? It's almost as if the author was not alive at that time, or have things actually gotten so much better, so quickly, that the author has forgotten?
- Does the author remember AQ's headquarters in, and control of, Afghanistan. Remember the total support Bush had in sending the military there? Remember how the overwhelming perception was that the military effort there would be in the form of many armored divisions and hundreds of thousands of troops? Remember how quickly and with how few casualties the major battles there took place?
- Remember that the world feared a surge of support to AQ's extremism, and the immediate execution of massive and unending AQ attacks?
In a shorter period of time than ANYONE expected, and with FAR less causualties than anyone dared expect, AQ has been beaten back, and it's extremism laid bare for the Arab world to see, to experience, and to reject.
IMHO - HISTORY will show the above paragraph to be George W. Bush's legacy. (Assuming anyone other than left wing Bush haters is allowed to analyze history and write truthfully of it.)
You are both correct and incorrect. Reagan began with a reservoir of good will with the American public from his acting days that G.W. Bush has never had. That along with some luck helps Reagan’s approval ratings stay higher despite being savaged about as much as G.W.Bush has been.
G.W.Bush on the other hand will probably like Reagan rise in stature after he leaves office. I am not sure if he will rise to Reagan like stature with the public, but he could surpass Reagan.
I have lived through both and to me it is almost unarguable that G.W. Bush was a better president. Bush trumps Reagan on almost every key issue:
1. Both signed income tax rate cuts, only Reagan went along later with big tax increases.
2. Both appointed some fine Justices to the Supreme Court, G.W. Bush does not seem to have appoint an O’Connor. [This clearly could be revised if Alito or Roberts turn?]
3. Both stood firm in foreign policy most of the time, but Reagan cut and ran in Lebonnan and G.W. Bush has been firm so far against all foreign problem governments. [If Iran ends up with an atomic weapon, maybe one could fault Bush?]
4. Both supported a program to legalize some illegal workers, Reagan signed one into law, Bush ultimately only increased border enforcement.
5. Both had big budget deficits and big military build ups.
Reagan was certainly not perfect, but please, get real!
If the guy in this clip had shown up more, there would be a lot less BDS:
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/04/29/video-bush-erupts-against-attention-deficit-media/
***After 9/11, it was inconceivable, at least to me, that we could go this long without another major terrorist attack. ***
Scary, isn’t it? If a democrat is elected, the terrorists will no longer be afraid to attack us again.
And the swine on DU were overjoyed when he died.
But Bush Derangement Syndrome can largely be laid at the feet of Algore.
I can't call what Gore did treason, but he's done more harm to this country than any of the traitors we have sitting in jail now ever did.
I’ve said over and over-—as a professional historian-—down the line Bush is going to be regarded very highly, especially for his visionary dealing with radical Islam. No, he won’t be up with Reagan, but he’s going to be in that upper second tier with people like Andrew Jackson (not my favorite, but always considered good), James K. Polk, and John Kennedy.
You got it. Just look at the professional historians and the surveys of “great” presidents in the 1980s (where Reagan was somewhat low) and where he is now, in the top three. People will come to appreciate how Bush not only held the country together, but fashioned the ONLY responsible counterattack on radical Islam and, to great personal detriment, maintained it for seven years.
[Bush] a man who could have done so much more.
Reagan had a lot of trouble with Iran-Contra. The only real way to defend it is to say that bringing it up presupposes that there was something right about opposing the Contras as the Democrats did with the Boland Amendment, in a huge bill which was very difficult for Reagan to veto.Overall I'd say that the real difference between them is that
Reagan got the country going again, whipped inflation, suppressed the energy crisis, and transcended Communism. Every part of which was over Carter's head, and the sum of which would have been over the head of any other 20th Century president.
- Reagan supported amnesty for illegal aliens at a time when it seemed like not only a compassionate but a rational choice. Bush OTOH supported the same thing after the Simpson-Mazzoli experience had shown that it was not nearly as rational as had been hoped.
- Reagan did more in his first six years with a Democratic House than Bush did in his first six years with a Republican House.
- Bush had Reagan's example, and there's no reason to suppose that he would have fought for low taxes without it.
- Reagan got rid of the Fairness Doctrine, thereby freeing up talk radio which has been a positive PR force for conservatism. Would Bush -who signed McCain-Feingold - have done so? I seriously doubt it.
Bush will rise in ranking after ten or twenty years - Republican presidents do. But not to the stature of Reagan, or anything like it.
Yeah, even if Iran is not involved!
Not much different than Jimmy!
President Bush will never get the respect President Reagan once received, because President Bush has done very little to earn the respect President Reagan once received.
Try this on for circumstance.
IF President Bush completes his term without any further terrorist attacks on US Soil, a Democrat is elected and an attack occurrs say one year into his or her presidency, then I say the perception of Bush’s legacy will change dramatically.
I realize that the next attack will be blamed on Bush making the terrorist mad by many in the media and the Democrats, but pulling out of Iraq, closing Guatanamo and killing the patriot act are pretty sufficient arguments to refute that Bush is at fault.
The blood will be all over his or her hands!
I'll grant you the supreme court appointments, but the rest is distorted bunk.
No, no, no. You’ve got it all wrong. They were comparing Bush to Reagan the legend, not Reagan the man.
Those are good points.
Assuming anyone other than left wing or right wing Bush haters is allowed to analyze history and write truthfully of it.
Just one minor tweak of a wonderful post. The BDS on FR has nearly reached KOS proportions.
I think his goal was "the new tone in Washington."
Were you not alive during the Reagan years? Reagan was widely loved outside the loony left. Reagan was inspiring and gave speeches that are among the best ever. Bush will have zero speeches that go down as historic.
Not if honestly looked at. Equating Bush's tax cuts to Reagan is not fair. Reagan revamped and simplified the tax code bringing top rates down from a commie-level of 70% to 28%. Bush muddled with the tax code adding complexity and had only nominal effects on the top rate. Reagan's tax cuts were truly reforms that turned the economy around. Bush's tax cuts helped maintain a solid economy, but were not as critical. And Reagan was able to implement such radical reforms with a Democratic Congress. Bush accelerated spending with both a GOP House and Senate.
—Although the point about Reagan giving in to higher rates in 86 is valid.
I do agree about Bush’s tax cuts- Republicans go around thundering about how great they are- they’re a pittance! Slash-and-burn is the only good policy when it comes to taxation, and of course you know I favor the complete abandonment of taxing income.
Yup! But the real question is, "In 50 years, will anyone remember that the United States was a sovereign nation.
Bush is an idiot.
he delegated authority over the occupation of
Iraq, to some people who were pushing their own
simple-minded ideas.
Bill Clinton and Reagan will always have those unwavering fans not just for what they did in office, but by the way they spoke and motivated people. A good speaker will always touch people.
That was one area, as we know, where GW was woefully lacking/ He was probably one of the worst of my lifetime. I turn the channel when he’s on.
I was reading a dumb NY Times article today, and someone said that Obama “speaks to my heart.” PLEASE do not underestimate that phenomenon.
President Reagan was brilliant, but for reasons misunderstood by the American people. Ironically, as has been the brilliance of both Presidents Bush.
The brilliance of a President is not seen in their public actions. It is not seen in how good they make the average man *feel*. The public was indifferent to Nixon having opened China for over a decade after he left office, and not because of Watergate, but because nobody made an issue of China. The public hardly noticed.
Most people think that SDI “Star Wars”, was what brought down the evil empire of the Soviet Union. Not true. It was just the coup de grace, the culmination of a project that Reagan had directed from the very beginning of his administration. Yet one that almost everybody would meet with incredulity even today.
The fool Jimmy Carter had made two impotent gestures to the USSR in response to its invasion of Afghanistan. To boycott the Moscow Olympics, and to suspend grain sales to the USSR.
But Reagan saw the big picture. He not only restored those sales, but opened the floodgates to sell every bit of grain the US could produce to the Soviet Union. For this, he was damned by his critics, and accused of being soft on communism and cozying up to the farm vote.
But that grain was very expensive. Soon every drop of oil, every speck of gold, and every bit of cash the USSR had was flowing to the US in exchange for wheat. In a half dozen years, they were impoverished. Bankrupt.
And then Reagan announced SDI. An enormously expensive anti-missile system far beyond the reach of anything the Soviets could match. A system that would make their missiles useless. It broke their will, and forced them to open their eyes and see the disaster they had made of their empire.
And this was Reagan’s brilliance. A President who almost bloodlessly defeated the largest empire the world had ever known, with stalks of wheat.
George H.W. Bush not only quickly defeated the fourth largest army in the world, but his understanding of China resulted in their signing of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, something they had sworn to never do, and a tale in its own right.
George W. Bush not only deposed two horrific tyrannies and a worldwide conspiracy of terror, after the US was attacked more brutally than at Pearl Harbor. But his actions may have forestalled a major nuclear war.
He busted up an extensive nuclear proliferation ring. And most of all, to the amazement of everyone in Washington, he followed in the footsteps of Nixon by opening India and making it our fast friend. A sleeping giant indeed, Bush has invited it to join the elite circle of world powers. A billion people living in a nation ignored since World War II.
Let us forgive the Presidents Bush for maintaining the status quo at home, which, granted, is due for some major renovations. Like Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and H.W. Bush, he has been very busy keeping the world from blowing up.
And, I might add, their having to fix the problems created by a worthless couple of Democrats occupying an office far to big for their little selves.
While President Reagan ended the Cold War, President G.W. Bush started the war against the satanic evil called Islam after 9/11.
Many people act as if we are safe or can negotiate away from this type of terrorism. It will continue until we eliminate it, or we are eliminated. Islam is a religion of hatred, fear and control.
President Bush recognized this evil, and I thank God he has had the fortitude to carry on this battle while being attacked on all fronts.
I truly believe he will be remembered as a great President.
to post 33
Bush may have done some of what you wrote.
he did so in a naive/absentee manner.
You're going to love the Obama years.
What an ignorant statement.
Well, I guess we should have elected Algore then. We now have a chance to bring back the Clintoon administration. or better yet, elect a faux-Christian Islamist as our President.
I am sure that you feel they would do a much better job. Or maybe you would like to be in President Bush’s bunker, being attacked from within and without.
You may also think that Christ was naive. He did His job without whining, either.
In response to one.
Truth is not ignorant.
Here's the truth. You are ignorant.
"They Will Hear All of Us Soon!"
President George W. Bush
September 14, 2001
On September 14th, 2001, just three days after terrorist attacks on the United States began the War on Terrorism, President George W. Bush met with the firefighters and rescue workers searching for survivors in the rubble where the World Trade Center once stood. Delivering an impromptu speech with a megaphone and his arm around a Chief firefighter, President Bush inspired the crowd who was chanting "USA! USA! USA!" as the president spoke:
"I can hear you! I can hear you, the rest of the world hears you... and the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon."
None of Bush’s speeches will touch Reagan’s Challenger speech, or A Time for choosing Speech, Reagan’s farewell address, Reagan’s tear down this wall speech, etc. None are even close. Bush has had many opportunities, but the only thing even remotely rememberable from Bush will be his ‘you are either for us or against us’ line. Bush was not a great leader. A pretty good president on several issues, but not great. Trying to elevate him to the stature of Reagan is almost humorous. Even GOP candidates running for president largely distance themselves from Bush, while all were dying to be linked to Reagan. Facts are stubborn things.
Reagan PASSED an amnesty bill. At least there were enough people in Congress to tell Bush NO.
Reagan's 'massive' tax increase was just a partial rollback of his tax cut. The so-called 'massive' tax increases represented less than 1/3rd of the taxes Reagan cut. Reagan was fighting a hostile Democratic congress and had to make such concessions to fight the Soviets. Bush had a friendly GOP congress most of his term, and yet spending under Bush went from $1.8 Trillion to over $3 Trillion during the Bush years. Bush pushed liberal agendas in several areas, unlike Reagan who usually accepted liberal policies as a compromise.
But what about all three of Bush's cuts, the cuts for individuals enacted in 2001 and 2003, and the business tax cut enacted in 2002? In raw dollars, Bush wins. Tempalski's tables show that Reagan's 1981 cut was estimated to average $111 billion per year during its first four years on the books, while Bush's three cuts average a combined total of $160.4 billion annually during the comparable four-year period.
But Bush loses when inflation is taken into account. A dollar today is worth much less than a dollar in 1981. And Reagan's cut is 12% larger than Bush's combined cuts in "real" dollars (dollars adjusted for inflation) according to Tempalski's tables, again comparing four-year averages for both tax cuts.
But wait -- Reagan's cuts never fully took effect. They were scaled back in 1982 by a tax increase that averaged $37.5 billion over its first four years. Subtract the '82 Reagan increase from the '81 Reagan cut, and the combined Bush cuts once again look bigger, even adjusted for inflation.
Hold on, though. The economy has doubled in size since 1981. According to Tempalski's tables, Reagan's cut would have amounted to 4.15% of the economy by the fourth year, and the Bush cuts total less than 1%. Reagan's cut is four times bigger than Bush's measured this way, as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Even subtracting the effect of the '82 Reagan tax hike, we calculate from Tempalski's tables that Reagan's net cut is roughly three times bigger than all of Bush's put together.
You are missing the point. Bush got through his tax cuts. They worked and the economy has been growing since. He never buckled to tax increases despite high deficits ala teh 1980s. Reagan did buckle to tax cuts, multiple times.
BTW, notice Reagan signed on to social security payroll tax hikes. That Bush did not and in fact pushed for partly private accounts is one more way G.W. Bush is a better president than Reagan was.
What!? I hadn't heard that Laura was running the country.
Your point on who controlled the legislature is a good one in Reagan's favor, but I disagree that Reagan got more done
The big picture of the Reagan Administration is that he followed a Carter Administration which set him up with some enormous challenges. Carter inherited a sluggish, inflation-prone economy - and left outright stagflation for his successor to handle. Carter's economy was headed toward crisis proportions - and would have promptly reached crisis stage if Carter had been able to retain office. But whereas Franklin Roosevelt inherited the Great Depression from Hoover and 8 years later was still whining that Hoover had permanently FUBARed the economy, Reagan had the economy clocking along just fine by the time of his reelection campaign in '84.Carter inherited a Vietnam-weakened and demoralized military, and left it in worse shape for Reagan. The USSR was on the move to, seemingly inexorably, increase its sphere of influence. Reagan turned that around too, and the USSR collapsed only two years after his term in office ended. It didn't just fall, it was pushed. By Reagan, especially his SDI.
Carter inherited the Energy Crisis, and did nothing effective about it. Reagan got it back in the bottle, even if it is out again now. But his successors, especially Clinton, certainly had opportunity to keep it in the bottle by starting drilling in ANWR.
Throw in the abolition of the Fairness Doctrine, which will reverberate through history by legitimating what is now the New Media, and you have quite a package. No 20th Century president can boast anything like that record.
Bush inherited a weak economy, and did what had worked for Reagan. That's to his credit, but not as much as if Reagan hadn't shown how it was done - under worse conditions. Bush inherited a moralized Islamic extremist movement, and failed to take it as seriously as, for example, Rick Rescorla did. His turnaround has been fine on that issue - except that he has allowed Big Journalism and the Democratic Party to frame the results of his actions in a negative way. With the New Media at his back - which Reagan could only dream of - Bush allowed the opposition to define him as bad or worse than Iran - Contra got wrapped around Reagan's neck.
I'll give you that Reagan might have done better with his pick of O'Connor, and of Ginzberg/Kennedy. And he wasn't ready when Bork had his name turned into a verb. But you have to admit that Bush named Miers before Alito, too. We just have to hope that neither Alito or Roberts "grows" as O'Connor did.
Very good line about Laura Bush. I guess in this case it is evil Dick Chenney rather than evil Nancy Reagan, but the line is similar.
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.