That's ridiculous. Bush triumphed over adversity, but he set no records in doing so. Besides, the MSM, CBS, the UN and the NYTimes were all against Reagan too and considered him the enemy. Yet Reagan won in two landslide victories and changed the course of the GOP and of America itself.
Let's get it out of our heads that Bush won an impressive victory. He barely squeaked through. Yes, he had a lot going against him. But he had a lot going for him, too.
Yes, he got a massive number of votes. But so did Kerry.
The bottom line is this: there are a lot of stupid people out there who believe Democratic propaganda. There is no guarantee -- none -- that they won't win next time.
If Hillary pulls off this tough-on-immigration scam, she'll probably be the favorite in the '08 general.
Let's wake up and smell the coffee.
You may notice I did not state the record was in achieving victory over the MSM, though I find it extremely notable in the 24/7 news climate we now live in.
The record was in achieving a second straight Republican gain in House and Senate. A MAJORITY in each. To which Bush himself is owed a great deal of credit. Some of these people would not have won without his coattails. This is something Reagan did not achieve. This is something Clinton did not achieve. It dates back at least half a century and IS a remarkable record that establishes a mandate.
I have not and will NEVER seek to discredit Reagan. I noted his record in achieving electoral landslide, to which he is rightly applauded. Nor am I, as was a child, as knowledgeable about the obstacles he faced to gain election. Though I am quite aware the MSM was against his presidency.
You will note I cited FRAUD that directly was meant to alter the course of a presidential election. You will note I cited direct interference in the release of highly suspect sensitive date released directly from the U.N. to the NYT's. If the obstacles Reagan faced were as blatantly corrupt and illegal, I have yet to hear it cited. It may well be the case, but as of yet I have failed to read or hear any commentary from conservatives across the board comparing this aspect to 2004. Extreme bias and antagonism is not the same as what occured with Dan Rather and the ammo dump leak. You will note I purposely Left F-9/11 and Kitty Kelley and their ilk out of discussion for the very reason their presence IS comparable, to my knowledge, of what Reagan encountered. Same with Global protests, etc..
Regardless, I fail to understand the need from EITHER side to discredit the achievements of Reagan OR Bush. Neither is diminished by noting their separate successful accomplishments either in office or during elective periods.
Bush never did achieve the electoral landslide Reagan personally experienced. Reagan never did achieve the Republican majority held by both House and Senate during his presidency, as Bush has. Reagan helped revitalize the Republican party and set its course. Bush has helped build the party into a majority. Each man has played a significant role in the course of America, the world, and yes, the GOP.
I have no desire to argue which man is "better", I will not be drawn into that frivolous argument. I'm proud of both of them. History will judge them accordingly.
Well we did increase our Republican wins in the House and Senate.That was good...This is the first 0ver 50% popular vote win since 1988 I believe...The win is not comparable in percentage,of course ..other factors are very nice,though.(coattails)