Posted on 06/04/2006 2:24:14 PM PDT by nuconvert
Bush is the Next Reagan
Jun 4, 2006
Slater Bakhtavar - Persian Journal
The same people who heavily criticized former President Reagan for his tough stance against Communism and for his aggressive push for democracy in Eastern Europe are now attacking President Bush for his tough stance against fundamentalism and his aggressive push for democracy in the Middle East.
-They argued then that Communism would never fall - it did They argue now that Islamic Fundamentalism will never fall - it will
-They argued then that the Soviet Union is too strong - it wasn't
They argue now that the insurgency is too strong - it isn't
-They argued that Reagans vision of democracy in East Europe would never work - it did
They argue now that Bushs vision of democracy for the mid-east would never work - it will
They argued then that Reagans evil empire speech was a failure - it wasn't
They argue now that Bushs axis of evil speech is a failure - it won't be
-They argued then that former soviet bloc countries wouldn't embrace democracy - they did
They argue now that middle east countries would never embrace democracy - they will
-They argued then that Eastern Europeans nations would never be our allies - they are
They argue now that middle eastern countries will never be our allies - they will be
-They argued then that people without God could never embrace democracy - they did
They argue now that Muslims will never embrace democracy - they will
-They argued then that President Reagan was unrealistic - he wasn't
They argue now that President Bush is unrealistic - he'll prove he isn't
-They argued then democracy isn't universal to former Communists - it was
They argue now democracy isn't universal to Middle Easterners - it will be
-They argued then that funding of pro-democracy groups in Eastern European countries won't work - it did
They argue now that funding of pro-democracy groups won't work in the Middle East - it will
The same exact critcism was directed at Reagan. The future will be the judge of President Bush and my guess is that he will be judged as the Great Liberator of the Middle East.
BTTT!
Great comparisons!
A lot are hopeful,
count me one !!!!
Someone gets it.
Count me two.
pong
History will be kind to our President Bush.. and the Chamberlains of the world will be just that.. a heap of cowardice that bit the dust in history's writings
My view(s) also!!!!
While I'm not in agreement with everything done by this president, keep in mind that, during his administration, many on the right criticized Reagan for not being tough enough on communism. Quite a different persepective in hindsight.
BS. (very) few moderate/conservative Republicans would argue that the President is doing an EXCELLENT job on the WOT, judiciary, etc. The areas of improvement are spending and immigration.
Despite what all the naysayers, on both the right and left, claim, President Bush will be well regarded by history.
I know this for a fact as I will be one of those writing it.
FYI
Count me three
"BS. (very) few moderate/conservative Republicans would argue that the President is doing an EXCELLENT job on the WOT,..."
I didn't see the word "excellent" in the author's sentence that you quoted.
Would you care to nitpick any of the others?
I agree on Terrorism and much of W's other efforts, but there are those that I don't. Chiefly among them is immigration; and, on this he will not win, nor will he go down in history as a winner, period.
Ping to you.
History may be kind, but his poll numbers look like his "Read my lips no new taxes daddy's numbers.
He can't hold a candle to Reagan. But then again, very, very, few can.
Just curious, what did you think of Reagan?
Truman had poll numbers in the low 20's but history has since given him a very favorable rating.
Truman is not even in the top 10 presidents.
He never makes it on polls or surveys (99% of the time it is the same 10 over and over) but most historians, across the political spectrum, rate Truman very positively.
It is stunning to me how the exact same groups that squealed like little piggies about President Reagan "going soft and selling out" in his second term are squealing like little piggies about President Bush "going soft and selling out" in his second term.
Do we have disagreements with this President? Of course. All of us have disagreements with every President—some more than others. But those that refuse to pay attention and learn from the past will end up being just as irrelevant in the future.
Fortunately, both President Reagan and President Bush are not those kind of leaders.
And it will not matter...much in the same way it does not matter with President Reagan.
I'm witchoo.
attaboy!
Someone has been paying attention to history ping
Since the article uses the comparison that Bush is the next Reagan...
I would think that for those that hate his stance, would REALLY see the comparison, correct?
Gag me....
I bet if Free Republic had been around during Reagan's presidency there would have been as many, if not more posts like yours, about him...
Thanks for the ping..Mo1!
***Someone has been paying attention to history ping***
That's the problem with history, by the time we read it, it's too late. Too bad we can't get hold of a few history books from fifty years or so in the future. Maybe THAT would shut up the naysayers.
To all: PRAY for our brave President.
The mythogrification of Reagan has reached the stage of demi-god...which is preposterous. How old were you when Reagan was president? Have you any idea as to how low Reagan's poll numbers were in his second term or how many "purist" conservatives were howling for his head, even during in his first term and saying that Reagan was "NO CONSERVATIVE" ?
And FWIW........Harry Truman, who most historians now claim was a fantastic president ( go figure ), had even lower favorable poll numbers.
From your lips to God's ears.
We should heed the words of Ronald Reagan about his experience with a needless and mistaken military occupation of Lebanon. Sending troops into Lebanon seemed like a good idea in 1983, but in 1990 President Reagan said this in his memoirs:
"…we did not appreciate fully enough the depth of the hatred and complexity of the problems that made the Middle East such a jungle…In the weeks immediately after the bombing, I believed the last thing we should do was turn tail and leave…yet, the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there."
Actually, Reagan sowed the seeds of Muslim terrorism by not taking down Hezbollah after the murder of 240 Marines in Lebanon in 1983.
Bush has stood up to terrorism; in this, he is greater, by far, than Reagan.
Hopefully W will never get a chance to sign this fershlugginer Senate bill. If he does, I will like him a lot less, but like Reagan did with our Marxist "friends", W has done a great thing with the WOT.......
A leader against great odds.
What a shame that the same types, who screamed about Reagan, when he was president, have now mythogrified him to such an extent, that accurate, factual history, is now not part of their memory/knowledge. Instead, we get post after post, about how Reagan was the ONLY conservative and how President Bush is so terrible. In ten years, these same people will be lauding President Bush and condemning everyone who follows him.
Early on (2000?), I kept hearing "Bush is stupid." I imagine you've heard this too. Is there anyone on the planet who hasn't? As I kept hearing that Bush was stupid, it made me think of Ronald Reagan. Only Reagan and Bush have gotten that level of "stupid" comments. Since Reagan was great, I thought, gee, if they hate GW Bush so, maybe there's hope.
Ronald Reagan was truly "the Great Communicator".
George W. Bush is renowned for his consistent ability to mangle a phrase.
Ronald Reagan was saddled with a mostly Democrat majority in the Congress throughout his 2 terms, but still managed to push through a large portion of his conservative agenda...mainly by taking his case directly to the American people.
George W. Bush has largely been blessed with a Republican majority, but has failed to expend much political capital effectively except on behalf of policies that Teddy Kennedy and John McCain seem to love.
Hmm. And you think being up against potentially nuclear-armed, well-financed, pitied and pampered freelancers who are willing to go out with a bang is easier? The challenges are different to be sure, but this is certainly NOT easier.
"President Bush will be well regarded by history"
It's good to know you will be among those writing those words about this great president.
Presidents achieve greatness on the world arena.
We may have differences with this president in regard to spending priorities, but I can't think of any president that has been historically downgraded because he spent too much - possibly LBJ.
As a historian perhaps you could explain how presidents are judged for greatness.
Go back to DU, LP, or whatever sewer you spawned from.
(Freeper naysayers...........are you paying ATTENTION??)
You are completely nuts. He has gotten so much done it is breathtaking. Read that West Point speech, if you don't realize it. That is the real reason for his poll numbers. He has done so much, people want him to do everything they ever thought of. Heck, they've even reduced homeless by 30%!
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.