[cyncooper]

I well remember becoming aware of extreme media bias during the Reagan era, but I will argue with anyone who claims it is no worse now than it was then. It was ten times (nay, 100 times) worse this past election cycle with ALL pretense thrown aside, plus the Soros, Moore, dems gone even more extreme, etc. fronts that Bush had to battle.

Bush is on parity with Reagan's achievement in my book having succeeded the execrable Clinton era and having to fight horrendous enemies, both foreign and domestic (yes, Reagan had the Cold War--I said parity, not supremacy---yet. Truth is, I think Bush will emerge in history as Reagan's heir and will eventually be deemed "greater than").

[kabar]

I hope Reagan and Bush are mentioned in the same breath and with the same praise by historians. It remains to be seen how history will view both men. There is no doubt that Bush has had to make much harder and controversial decisions.

There is no doubt that Bush had to overcome many more obstacles to achieve a second term than Reagan. Considering the onslaught of the Dems, MSM, and the 527's, which spewed the worst lies and propaganda ever against a sitting President during an election cycle, Bush's victory is impressive. However, Reagan's victory in 1984 was the most lopsided in American history. Reagan won by 17 million votes and took over 97% of the electoral votes (525 to 13).