Posted on 06/17/2004 6:51:58 PM PDT by Lando Lincoln
Reagan and Bush - and Lincoln - have many, many similarities in heart and soul, courage and fidelity.
All three have been vessels, submisssive to the Lord, through which the Lord has spoken.
Reagan inspired the nation and got things done. Bush just doesn't do that nearly as well or as often.
Sure Reagan got a Dim Congress to go along with his tax cuts and Bush had a GOP Congress. Of course Reagan had much more of a mandate than Bush who won by a razor thin margin. Bush on the other hand rallied the country to the war on terror much more than Reagan was able to rally the country against communism. Of course the US was directly attacked by Islamofascists which aided Bush in rallying the country and the country was not attacked by communism during the Reagan years. If you were not around, I promise you that the US is much much much much more unified against Islamofascists than it was in the cold war any time after 1970.
Reagan was a master and was also sharper than Bush policy wise.
I see no basis for this statement? Both were as the article says accused during their times as being dunces as all GOP presidents and presidential candidates have been since Tom Dewey. Bush and Reagan seem each to be[have been] firmly committed to a certain set of similar views, national defense, defeating our enemy, private choices over government, ect. But each presided over record deficits partly cause by economic slowdowns, defense spending and Congress which shows they had to be and were flexible. Each firmly supported life.
Bush can give a good speech, but is not inspiring. Reagan is just unmatched in history for communicating American values.
Reagan was a polished actor. Bush is not. Reagan was inspiring at the memorial to the Challenger astronauts, but no more inspiring than Bush bravely throwing out the first pitch of the 2001 World Series in Yankee Stadium right after 9-11. Reagan was also highly criticize for his speaking and leadership in the 1980s ala Bush today. I promise you that "... tear down this wall..." was not a speech that was well received in the press at the time it was given. The opposite was true, the press was aghast.
Is/was Mondale a gigolo?
What's the real story of Eleanor and Bill? Was there something with Alexandra/Vanessa and Bill?
Kerry is a tall, horse-faced, French Dukakis.
Why don't you wait till the end of GW's eight years before judging?
Good one!
Of course, in the early 1980s, when the Democrats said someone "is no Reagan," they meant is as a compliment. How quickly they turn....
What you say is true. But what was really impressive were the number of young people. There may be hope yet.
Make that Mondull.
Believe me, they "get it".......
Thanks for providing this encounter with young folks. I saw many in the crowds and snesed that there must be something drawing them there.
Amen....Amen. He has had so many trials and tribulations that I call Bush... President Job....as in the Bible....Job.
I must amend my post to include Harry Truman having a helluva first few months in office. Can you imagine following FDR, a beloved president, being told about the Manhattan Project, seeing us through to V-E day, the decision to drop the bomb and end the war in the Pacific, all within about 4 months? Staggering.
Truman left office in Jan. 1952 with about a 20% approval rating. History has acknowledged the great accomplishments of HST. I concur.
It doesn't take eight years to judge. Reagan will be quoted and studied for hundreds of years. Reagan would have destroyed Gore. Reagan would be destroying Kerry. Reagan certainly endured the same criticism from the leftists, but handled himself better and nothing stuck. Policy-wise, except for a couple things, Bush has been outstanding. But to compare debating skills and speech giving skills, Reagan is really in a class byhimslf.
Well of course! Geez, Reagan had an entire CAREER developing the necessary acting skills to be superb, before even entering politics.
It was more than just that. Reagan had spent years studying issues, writing about issues, and giving speeches about issues on top of his acting career. Reagan was able to discuss any issue and always knew the right thing to say. Reagan had the confidence, the timing, the style, and the knowledge. Bush is a likable guy with lots of charisma and a solid set of values. Bush is not nearly as polished or as informed as Reagan was. Reagan's lifetime of preparation matched with his incredible character and prophetic vision may never be surpassed. Reagan was the perfect storm, he just had it all. Bush has similar values as Reagan, which is why I really like Bush.
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.