Replies

>>>It's clear now that you're actually off your rocker. Your continuing implications to the contrary are positively Stalinist.

Personal attacks are uncalled for, bucko.

First off, I was responding to another Freeper and you butted in. Remember.

>>>>ReaganMan, I don't know why you are so defensive about Pres. Reagan.

At this point, the gloves came off. I remember my last run in with you. Now, if you want to defend what another FReeper says, then you have to take the heat. But you weren't totally silent.

>>>>The fact that Pres. Bush, who received less than 51% of the popular vote, has broken Reagan's record by nearly 8 million votes is truly astounding.

and

>>>> ... the fact that Pres. Bush has exceeded Pres. Reagan's vote record by 7.6 million votes while garnering only 50.8% of the popular vote is truly amazing.

Astounding. Amazing. As I pointed out, I did't think so.

>>>>You may not like the fact that Pres. Bush obliterated Reagan's vote record, but facts are facts.

It ain't worth jackshit! As I pointed out to you, Reagan's victories were landslides. Reagan beat Carter by 8.4 million votes. Reagan beat Mondale by 16.8 million votes. Reagan won both times with electoral landslides.

Anyone with half a brain knows that over the 20 year period in question, the US population went up by some 60-65 million more people. That means a lot more people are going to vote. DUH!

>>>>You obviously need a refresher course in American history. Pres. Bush is the first President since FDR in 1936 to gain votes in the House and Senate while running for re-election. LBJ never even ran for re-election!!

I never said anything about "reelection". It's obvious you need a refresher course in reading comprehension. In 1964, LBJ was the last sitting President to be elected and have his party increase their majority in both houses of Congress. He had a two seat pickup in the Senate, 66 to 68 and a 36 seat pickup in the House, 259 to 295.

There was good reason why Reagan was no help to the Republicans running for reelection in the House in 1982. The nation was in a deep recession and economic recovery was months away. In his 1985 landslide victory, Reagan's coattails helped the GOP hold onto the Senate and increase their House seats by 16.

PresBush43 was handed a GOP majority in the Congress when he came to office in 2001. Reagan didn't have that luxury. Reagan had to form a coalition of Republicans and conservative Democrats to get his policy agenda implimented. If you really had worked for Reagan, you would have known that. I doubt you ever did.

"At this point, the gloves came off. I remember my last run in with you."

Reagan Man, I frankly have a hard time understanding what you're talking about. At no time have I ever denigrated Pres. Reagan's legacy. Why in the heck would I call myself "calreaganfan"!! My two comments that you cited were both in praise of Pres. Bush's electoral achievements. You inexplicably assume they are attacks on Reagan's legacy. The fact that Pres. Bush has achieved an enormous popular vote count (far exceeding all pre-election predictions) and broken Reagan's record by a wide margin is something worth celebrating (as Reagan would!). The fact that Pres. Bush has also helped to increase the number of Republicans in the House and Senate in both elections of his presidency is something that is truly historic. Citing and celebrating these accomplishments does nothing to denigrate Pres. Reagan.

P.S.: The fact that LBJ was NOT running for re-election in 1964 is the key point. When running for re-election, the President's party usually suffers at the polls as the electorate often desires change. That's why the achievement by Pres. Bush and the Republican Party has not occurred since the 1920s (for the GOP). Not only was Pres. Johnson not running for re-election, he was still the beneficiary of a lot of public sympathy resulting from JFK's assassination, and the Dems had the benefit of running against an opposing party whose presidential candidate was portrayed as a right-wing extremist.