Reagan had a positive economic message, that's why he won landslides - an economic message plus national security plus values. now, we win only on national security and values. we have no economic message. jobs offshoring, pension benefits evaporating, retiree medical fading, jobs creation only in low cost service sectors, immigration supressing wages for many types of jobs (any americans who want to work as painters, roofers, sheetrockers, etc?). what have we got to say about it? more free trade is offered up as the answer. read the posts from many freepers in Ohio, what is happening to the economy there, and tell me you are sure we can win Ohio in 2008.
You talk about 'message' (rhetoric), I asked about SPECIFIC policy/outcome differences between Reagan and Bush.
BTW: President Reagan won a re-election landslide because the economy 'turned' at the perfect moment (and he ran against a complete loser); prior to the economy's 'turn' his 'message' was so UNPOPULAR that he considered NOT running for re-election -- job approval ratings in the 30s will do that to a president. [NOTE: Within a year after his landslide re-election, Reagan's job approval ratings were back in the 40s where they plateaued for almost 6 years of his 8 years in office . . . Bill Clinton posted a better Gallup rating for his 8 years in office; does this mean he had a better 'message'?]