Reagan: It's time to strike back

DodgeGlobe.com ^ | January 30, 2004 | By Michael Reagan

[11th_VA]

Hatred of President Bush is what drives the Democratic candidates for their party's presidential nomination, says Larry Sabato, the widely respected political observer at the University of Virginia ­ and he thinks it's time for President Bush to wake up to that fact and go on the offensive. "The Democrats have dominated the news media ­ every channel, every hour, with the exception of the State of the Union address," he says. "Democrats' unity of opposition to Bush on every issue has kept the campaign a symphony rather than a cacophony, building toward a crescendo of anti-Bush fervor. The Democrats are pumped. The Bush White House appears blissfully ignorant of that reality, at least early in the campaign season."

He's right. Back in 1996, when Bill Clinton was running for re-election, the Democrats started very early in the campaign to spend a lot of money to derail any Republican's chance of winning. It was the smart thing to do and it worked.

This year it's important that people be reminded that there are two primary campaigns going on, side-by-side with the Democratic primaries there are also Republican primaries.

But it's the Democrats who get all the media attention. Every day. Edwards gives his same speech, Kerry gives his same speech, and Dean gives his same speech: "down with America, down with the president" and all the rest of that demagogic claptrap.

The President of the United States, however, gets almost no time at all. If I were the President at this stage, I'd be showing up for the primaries. I would have been in Iowa and New Hampshire, and I'd be in Missouri and South Carolina and every other state holding primaries.

He should show up on primary nights, thank the Republicans who voted for him. and discount what all these people are saying. Instead, what have we been getting? Six hours of "America sucks, the president is a stupid idiot, America sucks." Six solid hours of that filth.

You get around that by having the President show up on primary night, thank the people who voted for him and set the record straight. Being President, he will get air time and we won't have to listen to six unbroken hours of slander against him and his party. He can start now to demolish all the untruths, blatant lies and distortions about him being peddled by the Democratic demagogues.

When Senator Kerry attacks the President for being allegedly dominated by all those evil special interests President Bush would have an opportunity to point out that Kerry's party is totally owned by special interests. They couldn't exist for one minute without the financial and political support of the trial lawyers, the abortion industry, big labor, the teacher's unions, the radical environmentalist movement and the rest of the motley crew who own the Democratic party lock, stock and barrel.

What Kerry is saying is that the Republican "special interests," which is growth and the economy, must go so he can bring his special interests to the White House and pay off the trial lawyers and the abortion industry and all the rest for their support.

All this garbage is all going unanswered and it needs to be rebutted by the President. Five Democrats, three of whom shouldn't even be in the race, are getting all the publicity bad mouthing the President. He's getting none.

The American people must be warned that if they vote for John Kerry or any other Democrat the war in the Middle East will end there and begin here. You won't have to worry about body bags coming back from Iraq because they'll be coming home from the mall.

Vote for the Democrats and the economy will turn sour. They are anti-business which is where the 401K' s of millions of middle class Americans are invested. But the Democrats attack the very source of our 401K retirement funds ­ business. Most of our financial resources are invested in the market, and these people want to ruin the market, ruin the economy and lose the war.

And nobody is in a better position to tell these truths to the American people that President Bush. He should get out there on the campaign trail now.

Mike Reagan, the eldest son of former president Ronald Reagan, is heard on more than 200 talk radio stations nationally as part of the Radio America Network. Comments to mereagan@hotmail.com for Mike.

[randog]

In any case, there's no denying the fact of our huge economic expansion in the 90's.

No, there isn't, but I wouldn't give Bill Clinton credit for inventing the microprocessor, either.

[Hawkeye's Girl]

BTW, I don't mean you're stupid :-)

[Pitchfork]

Well, I'm not going to argue with the "whatever the dems do is wrong regardless of the facts crowd" but look at the GNP growth and productivity gains of the 90s' look at your PC, the internet, under the hood of your car, at your cell phone etc . There were excesses in the 90's sure (Enron and Worldcom for example) but in many fundamental ways the US economy was tranformed for the information age. Microsoft isn't a fiction or some democrat generated myth. But believe what you want and I won't bug you with facts anymore.

[gatorbait]

Would the NEA ever think to fund art like this?

This is a wonderfully graphic presentation of the Utmost Savagery that was Tarawa. Answering your question, they will now.

[nopardons]

It is painfully obvious, palpably so, that you don't know what a BUBBLE is. THERE IS NO BUBBLE NOW, THE '90S BUBBLE BURST; IT BEGAN LEAKING AIR IN MARCH OF 2O00!

I suggest that you read " MANIAS,PANICS,AND CRASHES ", by Charles P.Kindleberger, because you have NO idea what you're talking about...none at all!

Neither do you understand pocketbook issue. The economy was turning around, when you fell for the " IT'S THE ECONOMY STUPID " BIG LIE.

Clinton did NOTHING, to make the economy grow; he was the recipient of Reaganonomics.

[whadizit]

I agree! Rove & Co. are doing things backassward! The only time we see GW is when he is spending our $$$. We need to see maybe some townhall type scenarios. He does not come across well making "speeches". He looks uncomfortable in that format.

At any rate, Rove and Card are just lying back and letting the Dems. have ALL THE FREE PR THEY WANT!!

[MJY1288]

LOL, like you already stated "I'm pretty young"

Do some research on what inflated the economy of the 90's, you'll find out that it was done with cooked books and highly deceptive accounting practices. Fortunately I never dumped a bunch of money in Mutual Funds or Shares I couldn't control, so when Clinton's House of Cards came crashing down, I didn't get hurt too bad. One of my best friends lost over a million bucks in what you call a boom.

The nineties Boom was like getting drunk and picking up a girl from the bar, only to be caught by your wife. You might have had fun at the time, but the price you pay will in the end will be a bitter pill to swallow after everything you own is being taken away from and you have to start over from scratch

To me that's not a Boom, it's a nightmare

[1066AD]

but what happened in the late 90s was pure fantasyland.
Yup, fueled by Greenspan in love with the "Y2K disaster" doomsayers.

[Sloth]

Claiming 'the dems will dive the economy into the ground' can only be a result of some kind of amnesia.

If you believe that Democrat fiscal policies encourage economic growth, you are:

1.) not conservative, and

2.) a fool.

[oceanview]

again, everything fed off the bubble. GNP growth, tax revenues to government surged to close the deficit (just look at California to see this effect, they couldn't spend the money fast enough, then it stopped coming in and they are near bankruptcy), your 401K, etc. the bubble gaveth, especially for those who cashed in, and the bubble taketh away.

were there some solid companies created? sure, Microsoft, Cisco, etc. but the "real economy" that was left behind after the bubble (and 9/11) has many scars.

[nopardons]

And Al Gore went after Microsoft, and almost crashed it, with Fed agents, because Microsoft's rivals were his donors and told him to.

Giving credit to Clintons and/or the Dems, for a good economy, is the height of stupidity!

PCs were around in the early '80s!

You'd really better stop talking about things you know NOTHING about and stop digging that hole, you're in, any deeper. Unless you REALLY want to keep proving how little you know and understand.

[randog]

...look at your PC, the internet, under the hood of your car, at your cell phone etc .

OK, I'm looking at all this cool technology around me. I don't see where it says, "Invented by a Democrat" (unless you're talking about the Gore Tax on my phone bill).

[Pitchfork]

Its almost comical how immune you seem to be to empirical evidence. I'm going to have to go find the job groth stats for the 90's and GDP per capita growth stats and productivity growth stats just for fun. We had 8 years of fantastic economic performance it was just so good we stopped watching out for scumbags like Eron's CEO.
You raise an interesting point as to whether the growth was generated by Reagan. I prefer to think that things took of when Bush sr. returned fiscal sanity to the US budget when he moved to systematically cut the deficit (a sensible act that he gets little credit for).

[bluefish]

You undermine your own credibility, with respect economic knowledge. Go back and revisit Econ 101. There is a little bit of lag effect that you must acknowledge. Keep in mind that the recession started at the end of Clinton's term. The recovery is kicking in, month's after Bush's tax cuts, which the Dems protested every step of the way. The market, which is a leading indicator, was screaming ahead, well before the recovery ever started kicking in. Don't fall for the short-sighted reasoning of the Dems, who want very much for the economy to stay depressed, or at least to convince the sheep that it is, when it isn't.

[nopardons]

My husband is a living legend on Wall Street. I know what a BUBBLE is and what it isn't; unlike YOU.

I also know that NO president's economic policies change things, for years; also, unlike you.

Flerdermaus, your economic knowledge and expertise is needed by Pitchfork. Please help him out of the chasm he's dug for himself.:-)

[risk]

I hope we do see more art like this. What a solemn reminder of how our forebears stood up for democracy, knowing they would probably be killed. Could we do the same?

[oceanview]

you simply fail to grasp what a bubble is. and how that "empirical evidence" is simply a downstream effect of it. take the tax revenues to the state of california as an example. where did that money come from? well, when all the inflated dot.com people cashed in their stock options, they paid a portion of that money in taxes, that's where it came from. when the bubble burst, the tax revenues did too.

[11th_VA]

BTW - Check out this pop-up add, and imagine if the Pubbies started to run similar adds:

Link

[MJY1288]

"You raise an interesting point as to whether the growth was generated by Reagan. I prefer to think that things took of when Bush sr. returned fiscal sanity to the US budget when he moved to systematically cut the deficit (a sensible act that he gets little credit for)."

Tell me that you don't think GHW Bush's tax hike is what sparked the boom of the nineties?

If you do, that means you believe the economy is tied directly to the federal budget and it also tells me that you are a democrat. What feeds the economy is the transfer of currency and confidence that only comes from personal growth from its transfer. The more money that changes hands, the more money that flows into the federal treasury. If you think the confiscation of personal wealth by the government is what expands a free market economy, than you're a Socialist

[gatorbait]

Could we do the same?

Some who post here have and we obviously have them in mortal combat as we speak. So ,yes.