Posted on 10/28/2004 5:39:59 AM PDT by OESY
This presidential election gives voters their starkest choice since Ronald Reagan challenged Jimmy Carter in 1980. President Carter had left a record of high taxes, economic stagnation and out-of-control inflation on the domestic front, and an America reeling from setbacks overseas, thanks to a gutted military and a weak, dithering foreign policy. Reagan, in contrast, promised to slash income-tax rates, rein in runaway government spending and push deregulation. He also vowed to launch a massive military buildup and a confident, assertive foreign policy against the Soviet Union.
We've been living off of Ronald Reagan's legacy ever since. We won the Cold War against all expectations. Our economy blossomed, bursting forth with fantastic innovations. The U.S. has gone from creating about one-fourth the global GDP to about one-third today. Our stock markets now account for roughly one-half of global market capitalization, having appreciated nearly tenfold. American household net wealth has never been higher. Japan's and Europe's net new job creation has been microscopic compared with ours. Our hollowed-out military has become the best in human history.
But we cannot coast any longer on Reagan's legacy; we must renew and expand it, both at home and overseas. Giants India and China are waking up economically. A growing number of countries are adopting the flat tax and becoming more competitive. And as for national security, Islamic extremists seek to sap Western civilization's morale, thereby enabling these fascists to reign supreme in Muslim countries while non-Islamic states quiver in fear.
We need a renewed Reaganesque revolution. So which candidate is the most likely Reaganite reformer? John Kerry? To ask the question is to answer it -- with gales of laughter. President Bush, on the other hand, has a program as radical as Reagan's was.
On national security....
On the domestic front....
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Some time . . . when the team is up against it, when things are wrong and the breaks are beating the boys - tell them to go in there with all they've got and win just one for the Gipper. I don't know where I'll be then, . . .. but I'll know about it, and I'll be happy.
-Ronald Reagan at Notre Dame, 1988
rng 2004
Mr. Forbes is like synonymous with wealthy. =)
Forbes is wealthy yes but the man has a great flat tax plan. He is a good soul.
It is too bad that in American politics Bill Clinton was considered handsome and electable while Forbes was considered nerdy and uncharismatic. Can you imagine if we had had eight years of Forbes instead of eight years of Clinton?
If we'd had 8 years of Forbes instead of Clinton, I'd dare say we'd never have had a bubble burst, a short recession, and our military would never have been neglected. Instead we probably would have seen the force reconfiguration away from the Cold War stance, which costs us billions with no conceivable benefit. Not even friendship from those who benefit from our largesse.
I'm pretty sure Forbes would not have been getting bj's in the Oval Office. 9/11 might not have happened. Etc. But I also think that if that had happened, George W. Bush would not have run for President in 2000. He did so as a reaction to the Clinton caused decline.
And more than anything, I bet the press would have hated him.
The Reagan Legacy?
How about "Bush revives the Rockefeller Legacy"?
Isn't that what he's really trying to do with his massive spending increases and huge growth of the federal government?
Be the president that Nelson Rockefeller would have been?
To accomplish anything domestic in his second term, Bush will have to gather the will to break the filibuster in the senate. We will need it to get judicial appointments and tax legislation. I suggest that they draft new rules that limit the duration of a filibuster in the organizing resolution of the Senate. Existing rules make it tough to get rid of the rules altogether. Anyway, a sign that Bush means business will be what they do on the filibuster. If they continue getting beat up, then the next 4 years will be more progress on the war on terror, and more coddling of the Senate obstructionists.
I supported him, I am very sad that we will never know just how good it could have been to have someone who could have made the Republican Party proud.
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.
