Posted on 06/17/2004 6:51:58 PM PDT by Lando Lincoln
Even with the death of Ronald Reagan, the country's mainstream media and by extension the liberal establishment, cannot help themselves. Ronald Reagan had been deceased only a short time, but the muted and insincere praise voiced by Reagan's many detractors and enemies is quickly coming to an end.
The first few nights after Reagan's death, the chattering class was awash in muted yet high-minded praise for America's 40th President. Listen to Ted Kennedy, the old liberal lion and adversary of Ronald Reagan: ''We often disagreed on issues of the day, but I had immense respect and admiration for his leadership and his extraordinary ability to inspire the nation to live up to its high ideals.''
Presidential contender John Kerry’s statement on Reagan’s death was equally as gratuitous and stately: ''Americans will bow their heads in prayer and gratitude that President Reagan left such an indelible stamp on the nation he loved.''
But as it became clear that Reagan was nearly as big in death as he was in life, the silver-lined words of liberal praise started to tarnish. The debate over Reagan's greatness will rage for decades to come for some among the political class. For the majority of the American people, the debate has already been settled.
It remains to be seen if flame-throwers like Ted Kennedy will contain the liberal impulse to speak their darkest thoughts, and thereby prove that Reagan's death was just a short respite from their continued hate against the presidency of George W. Bush. In an election year, it may be too much to ask that what the opposition party has shown Ronald Reagan in death should be shown to the sitting president in life: respect for the office and the man who occupies it. Regarding Bush, no one said you have to love him.
Make no mistake; the liberals of 1980 despised Reagan as much as the liberals of 2004 hate Bush. Far from loving Reagan, Democrats now seek to minimize him as far as his legacy is concerned. But do not be surprised if during the coming presidential debates in October between Bush and Kerry, you hear a classic rejoinder along the lines of ''and let me tell you something, Mr. President (wait for the perfect pause…), you are no Ronald Reagan.''
In relative haste after Reagan’s death, liberals inserted politics into a time of national mourning, a period where politics should have been put aside, if only until the end of the funeral. Once it became clear that similarities between Bush and Reagan were as natural as blue is to sky, the talking heads sensed a major problem on their hands.
You can hear it voiced in a piece by MSNBC contributor Howard Fineman, or senior Democratic Party strategist Philip James writing for Guardian Unlimited in the United Kingdom. One-time California gubernatorial candidate Arianna Huffington of Salon.com writes of Bush being ''no Reagan,'' and you see similar comments on the op-ed pages of the New York Times. Perhaps the best place to see the consternation of the liberal establishment and the Bush-Is-No-Reagan catch phrase is on the ''John Kerry for President'' web site. If you read the blogs and messages found there, you can detect a sense of fear in the air.
While it is easy to say that Bush is no Reagan, it is far harder thing to ignore the comparison that has, incredibly, caused the modern day liberal establishment to actually use the name of Ronald Reagan as a bludgeon against the re-election of George W. Bush.
Like Reagan, Bush is looked upon as being out of touch with the average American. Like Reagan, Bush is as hated in Europe as Reagan ever was. Like Reagan, Bush is considered a militaristic ''cowboy.'' Like Reagan, Bush is considered an ''amiable dunce'' or ''moron.''
The above is what some would call personality traits. I call it slander. But what of comparisons between the two men in policy and vision?
Like Reagan, Bush came into office when the nation was under an economic dark cloud, though Reagan’s task was much deeper in its totality of economic revitalization. Like Reagan, Bush prescribed marginal rate tax cuts to right the economic ship. Like Reagan, Bush set out to rebuild a military that suffered under the stewardship of Democratic predecessors. Like Reagan, Bush is committed to fighting the ''evil empire'' of the 21st Century, terrorism.
Still more:
Like Reagan, Bush has policy initiatives that can be labeled as sweeping. Like Reagan, Bush can deliver the big speech when the moment calls for it the most. Like Reagan, Bush believes that freedom is endowed from God, and not given by man. And like Reagan, Bush believes in the good and irresolute will of the American people.
Indeed, when looking at President Bush under the lens of the Reagan presidency, it is right to say that ''Bush is no Reagan.'' But to be fair, Reagan was no Bush. Both men had qualities that the other lacked, and styles of governing that reflected a different era of life that both men grew up in. Both bought life’s experiences, their own, into the presidency. For Reagan politically, FDR was a major influence. For Bush, it was Reagan. All that means is that both mean knew greatness when they saw it.
There are many differences between Bush and Reagan. Bush does not have the smoothness and ultra-quick wit of Ronald Reagan, nor is he comfortable with the English language at times. He has trouble promoting his political successes to the electorate, and at times communicating with members of his own party. Still, these are mostly points of style, something a person may grow into with time and experience. According to MSNBC’s Howard Fineman, ''George W. Bush is no Ronald Reagan, and no Franklin Roosevelt, and no Winston Churchill.'' True. He is not. But whether Mr. Fineman realizes it or not, Bush seems to be in good company.
If someone would have told me six months ago that the liberals in an election year would be using the name of Ronald Reagan in a way to try to defeat Bush in November, I would have told you that they have a better chance of getting John McCain to be John Kerry’s vice-president. This, too, shall pass.
About the author: Vincent Fiore is a freelance writer and activist who resides in New York City.
Maybe not, but he is one hell of a lot closer to being Reagan than "JFKerry" is.
I would be happy with "Kerry is a Walter Mondale".
The death is not the event precipitating the panic. The panic results from the manner in which the reality of greatness was contrasted with the memories of mediocricty.
This contrast was the primary theme of Brian Mulroney's eulogy. The camera shifted to Bill and hill and the point was made. Clinton was a mediocre Governor who never really made it as President.
For the American young voters, those who will choose to vote for the first time even tho 30 years old, The Rat choice will now be the wrong choice.
Character counts
I like Bush, but Bush is not in the same class as Reagan. Reagan was the best President since Washington. Bush is a very good President.
"You can't win, Darth. If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine."
Seems to me that Teddy "the beluga whale" Kennedy may have been absent from class when this subject arose.
But do not be surprised if during the coming presidential debates in October between Bush and Kerry, you hear a classic rejoinder along the lines of ''and let me tell you something, Mr. President (wait for the perfect pause…), you are no Ronald Reagan.'' And the reply should be "For twenty years, you and your party have been telling us that Reagan wasn't even a Reagan. Since you've finally come around on Reagan, I'm sure you'll come around on me in time."
Lando
"I may be no Ronald Reagan, but you'll be Walter Mondale when this election is over."
That's very true. But Reagan was handed two huge victories by the American voter --- 1980 and 1984. And Reagan had a special connection with the people. Last week that connection resurfaced with overflowing admiration, respect and love for a great man. I don't think the librats have any chance of ever tarnishing the memory and legacy of Ronald Reagan.
I like Bush, but Bush is not in the same class as Reagan. Reagan was the best President since Washington. Bush is a very good President
____________________________________________________
Bush has been president a little over 3 years. Reagan was president 8 years and we have already seen what happened after he left office.
With a little luck Bush could leave a legacy of a stable arc of more or mostly free Islamic countries from Kuwait or even Saudi all the way through Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan to Pakistan and an economy with solid growth for 8 years. That would be a legacy that could compete with solid growth for 8 years and the freeing of Central Europe. Only time will tell, but at this point in the Reagan administration who knew either?
Hubby and I spoke at length this evening with our 23 year old college educated niece and her 23 year old college educated fiance. A few short years ago, both of them fancied themselves "liberals"...........now they are trying to swing a mortgage, two cars, utilities, etc, AND cannot afford cable television (thank God!). Believe me, they "get it".
.
RANDALL's 'MANSIONS' =
RONNIE's D.C. Funeral Hymn
http://www.TheAlamoFILM.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3520
.
That grudging recogonition of the greatness of Reagan by itself is a victory. It means the Liberal mean-spirited view of Reagan as a doddering and dangerous fool who did nothing good is rejected - and the true view of Reagan as the BEST PRESIDENT OF THE 20TH CENTURY (if not that, the best President of the latter part of the 20th century) is likely to become history's judgement. Reagan revived the economy and helped cause the Soviet Union and the communist empire to collapse.
It would be worse if they tried to use Reagan as an anchor to sink Bush. Remember 1992, when Clinton+media used "12 years of XYZ" to describe Bush 41 economy... tried to tarnish the Reagan record back then.
Very true.
"With a little luck ... " and a 'mis-underestimated strategery' we will kick Islamic terrorist butt within 10 years, just like Reagan put the communist empire on the ash-heap of history.
"That would be a legacy that could compete with solid growth for 8 years and the freeing of Central Europe."
oh, and BTW, we are seeing the best growth in 20 years ... hmm, who was Pres 20 years ago? Who had a blowout re-election?
Right, at this point in Reagan's tenure, people were not convinced he was doing the right thing. I was a supporter and I wasn't sure, so it took some time. In fact, the wall came down just after his time in office. And then communism fell in the Soviet Union. Who knew it would happen 5 years before?
bttt
What really got them was the hundred thousand plus attendance at the viewings; these were ordinary people AKA voters.
Reagan inspired the nation and got things done. Bush just doesn't do that nearly as well or as often. Reagan was a master and was also sharper than Bush policy wise. Bush can give a good speech, but is not inspiring. Reagan is just unmatched in history for communicating American values.
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.
