Replies

My wife and I discussed Ronald Regan v. George Bush over dinner last night. My kids have been asking me what I thought of RR.

I truth, I did not vote for RR, but instead supported John Anderson in 1980. I clearly remember the night of the Illinois primary, when the announcement was made that Reagan would win, I made a fateful decision NOT to join the Marine Corps upon graduation from college. In those days, we called him "Ronald the Raygun". I say my decision was fateful in that, I could have been one of the 200+ Marines who died in Beirut.

I graduated college in 1980, entered the workplace in the midst of the Reagan Recession. It WAS bad for me personally. As a 20-something, I was not very politically aware, so I don't have much to recall from 1980-88, except I do remember vividly the Challenger disaster, and President Reagan's excellent commemoration speech. I cannot even clearly remember if I voted for Reagan in 1984, but I doubt I would have supported Mondull. In 1988, I DID not vote for Dukakis, even though I was raised in Massachusetts.By then, I was married and seeking to support those who would maintain the tax reduction -- remember Bush 41's No New Tax pledge???

In 1992 I voted for Perot as a protest to Bush, and then realized that I was one of the 20% who gave Bill Clinton the presidency. Throughout the 90's, I have matured politically to where I now understand that by splitting my votes, I was diluting my support of issues that I now hold as priorities. In large part, I have to ascribe this to listening to talk radio (Rush since 1990 and Mike Rosen) as balance to NPR and the major networks, reading the OP-Ed pages, and becoming a critical reader of the news.

Now to comparing W to RR: I was, and still am, a luke-warm supporter of W: I want him to do well, but HE DOES NOT INSPIRE ME. When W was running in the 2000 primaries, I asked Texan friend of mine what kind of Governor he was. My friend told me that Bush was able to get the Democrats and the Republicans in the Texas Legislature to work together, something Bush would do in the White House. Over the years, I have not seen Bush do this with Congress AND GET THE CREDIT he deserves. George W. Bush is not a good communicator in the Bully Pulpit.

Watching the Reagan videos this week confirms this opinion. President Ronald Reagan was special, when he was in office, I was too naive to recognize this. He made his speeches his own, his delivery was impeccable and sincere (compare that to Clinton-smarmy and cynical). He was a gentleman and quick on his feet in press conferences. Many of the same criticisms that Reagan was but a front-man for those who pulled his strings are said about W. But in Reagan's case, I believe he could only be handled only so far. Can you imagine Reagan's response to the recent press conference where W was asked if he made any mistakes in Iraq and W just refused to answer? RR would have admitted responsibility with humility, won over the American public and laid out a course of action which would blunt the critics and deflect (Teflon) the jabs of the press.

Ronald Reagan was special. I just wish I had realized it at the time.