Posted on 10/20/2005 12:38:21 PM PDT by Map Kernow
Am I sure this is actually from Rush? Indeed I am. I found it in my inbox first thing this morning, shot Rush an email asking permission to post it, and, during a break in his show--Rush is on the air as I type--he replied, Sure thing. From America's anchor:
Peter,
This debate is an example of how many smart people get way ahead of themselves trying to be the smartest guy in the room. Perhaps they can point us to the examples of W using the WH bully pulpit to actually lead and define a movement? If they cannot, the argument is moot, long before the discussion of policy begins.
Reagan, accepting the nomination in July 1980, said (paraphrasing): Mr. Carter asks us to trust him. But that is not the way our country works. We do not ask the people to place trust in one man. The trust is placed in the people with the leaders respecting and honoring that trust.
He went on to DEFINE conservatism further in that speech and continued to do so for 8 years, leading and building a movement in the process. He did not devote either policy or time to the objective of "getting along" with his enemies. He did not have aids talking to the WPOST and NYT to try and get his message out "fairly." He went over the heads of the press, straight to the American people in every speech and appearance he made. There was a reason Americans felt a renewed confidence in themselves and their country and that is because their President told them constantly how he had confidence in them. It's called leadership.
There is a reason he won two landslides. And it was not slick marketing and packaging. It was substance.
Ping for the list...
True that :)
He then appointed Sandra Day O'Connor and Conservatives rejoiced!
BS
I love RR and RL but GWB is not carter!
Would you be interested in pinging your list for this?
Exactly. There's plenty to dump on Reagan about as well. To frame the whole thing as Bush vs Reagan is truly BS.
Well said!
ping
The didn't call him the "Great Communicator" for nothing.
You don't.
Another "classic" from Rush below:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/forms/printThis.html?id=110007417
The real crackup has already occurred--on the left! The Democratic Party has been hijacked by 1960s retreads like Howard Dean; billionaire eccentrics like George Soros; and leftwing computer geeks like Moveon.org. It nominated John Kerry, a notorious Vietnam-era antiwar activist, as its presidential standard-bearer. Its major spokesmen are old extremists like Ted Kennedy and new propagandists like Michael Moore. Its great presidential hope is one of the most divisive figures in U.S. politics, Hillary Clinton. And its favorite son is an impeached, disbarred, held-in-contempt ex-president, Bill Clinton.
The Democratic Party today is split over the war and a host of cultural issues, such as same-sex marriage and partial birth abortion. It wants to raise taxes, but dares not say so. It can't decide what message to convey to the American people or how to convey it. And even its once- reliable allies in the big media aren't as influential in promoting the party and its agenda as they were in the past. The new media--talk radio, the Internet and cable TV--not only have a growing following, but have helped expose the bias and falsehoods of the big-media, e.g., Dan Rather, CBS News and the forged National Guard documents. Hence, circulation and audience is down, and dropping.
The American left is stuck trying to repeat the history of its presumed glory years. They hope people will see Iraq as Vietnam, the entirety of the Bush administration as Watergate and Hurricane Katrina as the Great Depression. Beyond looking to the past for their salvation, the problem is that they continue to deceive even themselves. None of their comparisons are true. Meanwhile, we conservatives will continue to focus on making history.
all have their foibles.
BJ Clintoon? I don't have time to say it all...
Right
President Bush sadly lacks that skill
But the passion is there imho
Bumping for later reading
I think what this also shows is the importance of being an excellent speaker. It is vital if one hopes to actually achieve one's stated goals.
Not at all. Reagan identified with the conservative movement---in some respects, he WAS the conservative movement. Bush has simply piggy-backed on what Ronnie and others worked so hard to build, and now that it's become a hindrance in his second term, he's happy to try to wreck it like a spoiled child. There is no comparison between Reagan and GW.
Actually Rush misses the entire point. He just would prefer we trust him, Kristol, Coulter, etc.
Agreed.
I really, really miss Ronnie.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.