What Would Reagan Do? (Ann Coulter Laments Bush Not Being More Like The Gipper Alert)

Worldnetdaily.com ^ | 09/21/05 | Ann Coulter

[whizeup]

What MISTAKES!? That is the point! He should of stood up to the nit-wits!

[1035rep]

I can understand the frustration.... but I think the liberals look like fools and I would not want to get in the gutter with them. This is just my opinion, I am not a strategist, but I believe the bashing will backfire again.

[whizeup]

Securing Both borders should have been the 1st thing we did without hesitation and no one would of disagreed at the time..that is what I mean about golden opportunities. I sure agree with you there.

[BigSkyFreeper]

Who gave us O'Connor??? Wasn't it Pres Reagan???

Yes.

[BigSkyFreeper]

Ann Coulter, one of the many handwringers in our midst.

[BigSkyFreeper]

Perhaps the dumbest column Coulter has ever written. Reagan biggest failure was that he appointed O'Conner and Kennedy and didn't get Roe reversed.

Exactly.

[whizeup]

I agree with you totally about their whining and bashing ect. people can see through that and of course it will help us, I personally hope they keep it up with the help of the MSM...even though I am screaming at the TV sometimes! they have the brains of a dead fly...wait a minute that might be giving flies a bad name.

[voteconstitutionparty]

Don't blame me.
I voted for Peroutka.

[TAdams8591]

Really standing up to the nit-wits BEFORE the storm hit, was one mistake. He should have went in to NO anyway, or AT LEAST have been as visibly out front as he has been in Houston.

[BigSkyFreeper]

Scalia deserved the chief justiceship. He's the best man for the job.

It may be possible that Rehnquist recommended Roberts to the job. Afterall, Roberts clerked and learned from Rehnquist. Scalia may not have wanted the job in the first place.

[sinkspur]

Don't blame me. I voted for Peroutka.

Blame you for what? Pissing away your vote on a loser who opposed the war on terror?

You constipationists got fewer votes in 2004 than you did in 2000 with fat Howard Phillips running.

How come?

[whizeup]

Say What?

[JeffAtlanta]

What MISTAKES!? That is the point! He should of stood up to the nit-wits!

100% agree - Bush didn't make any mistakes that were of any consequence during or after Katrina. His only mistakes were those of image - he should have ended his vacation early and he shouldn't have kept telling everyone what a good job they were doing. Those were only image mistakes however and had nothing to do with actually affecting anyone's life.

Reagan and Clinton (give the devil his due) both knew how to stand up to their adversaries and articulate their position to the American people. Bush doesn't do that. Bush isn't the best speaker in the world, but I think it is more that he chooses not to.

Instead of articulating conservative solutions and implementing them, he instead meekly proposes socialist spending.

[nutmeg]

read later

[sinkspur]

He should have went in to NO anyway, or AT LEAST have been as visibly out front as he has been in Houston.

Bush was just as visible for Katrina as he has been for Rita.

The difference is that Rick Perry, Texas governor, has things in hand. Mass evacuations are under way, three days before the storm.

Blanco and Nagin were huddling with attorneys 24 hours before Katrina hit, then they issued a mandatory evacuation order when it was too late.

[BigSkyFreeper]

Reagan did nothing in the pro-life movement except say a bunch of rhetoric that Reagan supporters glommed onto. Meanwhile, it's 2005, and Roe has not been overturned.

[Reagan Man]

>>>>But he didn't come close to actually doing as much as George W. Bush has.

Revisionism 101. LOL

For starters. Bush has been fortunate to have a GOP Congress to work with. Thanks Newt. Reagan didn't have that luxury. Reagan was successful in getting six years of a GOP Senate starting in 1981. OTOH. When you look at Reagan's two landlside election victories, its obvious he connected with the vast majority of Americans like no since Ike. Something Bush has been unable to do thus far. Bush barely got by Algore and a close outcome in Ohio almost gave us President Kerry.

Don't take me wrong. I like Bush. He is a man of integrity, honor and morality. He's doing a remarkable job prosecuting the war in Iraq. On cutting taxes, defense, judical nominees and pro-life/right to life issues, Bush has shown strong conservative leadership. On social spending (called "HUMAN RESOURCES" in the budget), Bush`s track record is awful. Social spending has gone up significantly each year of Bush`s Presidency. Bush is a big spending, big government Republican who hasn't picked up his veto pen since taking office. And on immigration reform, Bush has been asleep at the wheel for the last 4-1/2 years.

Reagan was also strong on tax cuts, defense, judicial nominees and pro-life/right to life issues. However, when it came to federal spending, Reagan actually reduced non-defense related discretionary spending in his first term and kept it under control for his full eight year term. Reagan also reduced social spending, aka. welfare and entitlement spending, from the Carter years, during his entire eight year term. OMB.gov has all the data.

The 1981 Economic Recovery Tax Act was comprehensive legislation to get the economy back on track. Reagan was faced with the worst economic conditions since the Great Depression. This is when Reagan had his lowest poll numbers. By 1983 the US economy was in recovery mode. Inflation, interests rates and unemployment were all headed down. Consumer spending, investments and savings were on the way up.

Reagan's military buildup and Strategic Defense Inititive set a course that would lead to the end of the Soviet Empire, Euro-communism and the US winning the Cold War.

When Reagan finished his time in office, the American economy was soaring, the evil empire was crumbling, and people around the world looked up to America again as a shining city on a hill. Bush43 has a lot of work to do in his final three years. I wish him the best. His success is my success and America's success.

[JeffAtlanta]

Blame you for what? Pissing away your vote on a loser who opposed the war on terror?

Voting for the winner isn't all that is important. While the big "L" libertarian party really needs to work on its foreign policy to be a major player, the GOP is moving further and further to the left.

Many who opposed Bush's socialist and globalist agenda voted for him anyway due to a Kerry victory just being too much of a risk. I don't think that will happen in 2008 though or even in 2006 with the congressional races.

If the GOP is going to campaign as conservatives but then govern as socialists, then why reward them election after election for their deception or lack of backbone?

Would it not be better to force them to govern as conservatives? At least when the republicans are in the minority they act like conservatives and have a backbone.

[Kryptonite]

Perhaps the dumbest column Coulter has ever written. Reagan biggest failure was that he appointed O'Conner and Kennedy and didn't get Roe reversed.

Coulter is obviously confused these days.

Roberts testifying so brilliantly as to make her prior disdain for him foolish has sent her off kilter a bit.

[Once-Ler]

The democrats aren't having to defend many up for grabs seats while the republicans have several vulnerable seats.

That is incorrect. 18 rat seats and 15 Republican seats are up for grabs. Of those 9 rep and 8 rat seats are safe. That means 10 rat seats and 6 Rep seats are available to steal. Of those a few are toss ups right now but it's too early to get worried and IMO reasonable to be optimistic about us adding seats.

The big problem is that beyond the religious right and ultra party loyalists the GOP senate just won't get much support from the traditional republican base - especially with small government and fiscal conservatives.

Much of the base is also motivated by fear of the rats. Although they may not approve of all the GOP has and is doing, they are practical people and understand the election is not just a referendum on the GOP but a choice between imperfection and the pure evil of the rats.

There maybe some far right conservatives who abandon the party but those voters have been and will be replaced by moderates who are disenchanted with the rats, and enamored with Dubya's taxcuts, foreign policy, and ethical maturity, even if they don't agree with him on every issue.

The GOP's attempt to win the hearts and minds of the traditional democratic voters by implementing endless socialism handouts won't work as liberals will always hate republicans.

Dubya never tried to get traditional rats to vote for him. He tried to get moderates to vote for him or stay home and not vote for rats by utilizing issues like defense of the nation, letting people keep more of their money, gay marriage, and right to life. Looks like it worked pretty well to me. We are finally in a place to make real and lasting change by putting good men on the SCOTUS. The results will endure for generations. This is an exciting time to be a Republican.