Posted on 10/24/2005 5:44:36 AM PDT by Molly Pitcher
SIMI VALLEY, Calif. -- Sometimes, the only thing a president can do is hang onto history -- the promise of that day when he has his library and all his critics have transformed into admirers who gloss over his many stumbles only to stand in awe of his accomplishments, when the naysayers and nitpickers cannot be heard, as the ears before him hear only an uplifting soundtrack of Aaron Copland.
President Bush clearly was dreaming of that day as he stood at the grand opening of the Reagan Library Air Force One Pavilion, with wife Laura and Nancy Reagan by his side. He beheld the faces of a sea of survivors of the Reagan administration.
Former California Gov. Pete Wilson, once vilified, is now how held up as an example for GOP Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Reagan's former attorney general, Ed Meese, endured a spate of scandals that would humble Bush guru Karl Rove. Former Reagan speechwriter Ken Khachigian weathered many brutal political campaigns.
Time allows the survivors to put it all behind them -- Iran-Contra, the god-awful Beirut-barracks bombing that left 241 American servicemembers dead, a massive deficit, ketchup as a vegetable. Today, the world remembers the Westminster speech in which he laid out his belief that freedom would triumph over communism, the Normandy speech and the day an American president uttered the words, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall."
Today, Republicans hear the words Ronald Wilson Reagan and they smile. No wonder, then, that Bush used the occasion of this ceremony to jump on the Gipper's bandwagon. Conservatives (rightly) are angry that Bush allowed the federal government to balloon and (foolishly) miffed that he chose a nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court who wasn't a member of their club.
The left, of course, is hitting Bush for the deficit, as well. And from all sides, there is the constant carping on Iraq -- from those who want more troops, a withdrawal date -- and who barely give a nod to a successful voter-approval of the Iraqi constitution.
And so Bush reminded the people before him about how his term will look if America succeeds in Iraq. U.S. Rep. David Dreier, R-Calif., picked up the theme, when he said after the Bush speech that both presidents had the "spirit to take on an -ism" -- communism and terrorism.
Having been belittled for calling terrorists the "evildoers," Bush reminded the audience how Reagan defeated "the evil empire." And Dubya didn't need to remind this crowd of the ridicule Reagan endured for using that term.
Nancy Reagan made an unwitting connection when she recalled her final flight with Reagan on Air Force One as they left the White House in 1989. "As the champagne was poured and glasses were raised, someone shouted: 'Mission accomplished, Mr. President. Mission accomplished.'"
Former state Sen. Jim Brulte, R-Rancho Cucamonga, remembered the days when he was a "flunky junior nobody" in the Reagan administration. "The first Gorbachev summit," he noted, "ended in 'failure' because Reagan wouldn't give away the store." But it wasn't failure.
It was an episode in a campaign won, Bush noted, because of Reagan's "resolve." While Bush is different in many ways -- Reagan was supremely confident in himself and secure in his skin; for all his bluster, Bush is less self-assured -- they both shared a vision of what this world could be.
And so as political heat blasted this administration, amid stories of a petty feud with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and as serious legal problems threaten top White House aides, Bush had reason to dream of the day when the rancor is past -- the day when a president's children are no longer the stuff of negative stories, his work habits no longer the stuff of derision and his speech no longer fodder for late-night talk shows.
How America sees Bush depends completely on what happens in Iraq and the war on terrorism. While the outcome is uncertain, the goal, to Bush, is clear.
Dennis Revell, the widower of Maureen Reagan, mused: "History is seldom an instantaneous pat on the back. That time will come for this president, as well."
It's a slogan. No president has actually cut the size of the federal government since Calvin Coolidge in 1924. And no president will, because the American voters do not want a smaller government.
I did not "attack" Reagan, Ivan. I posted some facts about his administration that put it in perspective relative to things Bush has done.
You're willing to write off Bush completely (and your heroic Prime Minister) because you have a notion that Reagan somehow embodied conservatism better than Bush does.
Reagan was, and Bush is, a pragmatic politician. Both men compromised to get some things done. Neither is an "all-or-nothing" conservative, as are some on this website.
That's how they got elected president, and why the uber-conservatives will never get elected to anything.
No one is running down Reagan FGS. I see fault in Reagan as much as I see fault in President Bush. Something you fail to admit or recognize.
No, raising taxes is not a conservative principle, bucko. Since you didn't have the guts to answer it, I will.
You're citing problems that have grown for decades, and somehow equating President Bush for starting them.
You are exactly right. Reagan was a truly great president. I fear we will not see his like again (though I hope to be wrong).
Thank you.
No it's not, but since Reagan wanted what was in those bills - and there is no line item veto - so he signed them to get the increased the military funds in them to put more pressure on the Soviet Union, I'd say, as a conservative, that Reagan's priorities to undermine the Soviet Union were in keeping with the most sacred conservative principal of all; kill communism.
Bush, OTOH, has grown the government so big, that even a Republican successor will have a hard time not increasing the taxes to pay for George's "Big Government Follies".
You just don't get the lay of the political land, do you? The Bush's and the Kennedy's are the two sides of the same coin. Eastern liberalism.
The current year deficit is $313 billion, which is lower, in 2005 dollars, than Clinton's deficit in 1996.
Hardly. I wouldn't call the Lockerbie bombing being put "into submission". Reagan sent American bombers against Libya after evidence came out that Libya was involved in an attack on American soldiers in a West Berlin nightclub. I won't fault him for that, that called retaliating against your sworn enemy. Hardly what I would call "pounding Libya into submission" in light of the fact of the Lockerbie bombing, and in light of the fact he's still in charge after all these years.
and keeps on calling Islam a "religion of peace."
Where the hell were you a three weeks ago, when President Bush uttered the famous words in a WOT speech, that are usually uttered here by FReepers to describe militant Islam as "Islamofascism"? A bold pronouncement, in light of the fact that President's are stereotypically known to usually try to be "above the fray" and diplomatic in their statements. A bold statement in a most bold speech on it's own, even if it got ignored or overlooked by those like you.
You just can't willingly face up to the fact that Reagan was no God, Reagan is no Bush, Bush is no Reagan.
I'm not crazy about Bush on many fronts, yet at the same time, I'm not going to ignore the fact that Reagan, as great as he was to this nation and free people everywhere, had his faults. In fact, you won't find anywhere in Reagan's legacy where he balanced a budget, reduced government spending, cut taxes across the board, or shrunk the size of government.
Yet Reagan appointed Sandra Day O'Connor.
No, Reagan was not lied to when he appointed O'Connor and Kennedy to the bench. They were perfectly good candidates at the time, that slowly drifted leftward over time.
I see. So Reagan cutting the government's share of GDP means nothing to you as does Bush running it up - all that matters is they wear the label "conservative", even if that means it disguises actions which could hardly be described as such in Bush's case. I don't know whether to laugh or cry at such stupidity and mendaciousness.
I did not "attack" Reagan, Ivan. I posted some facts about his administration that put it in perspective relative to things Bush has done.
Rubbish. You have attacked Reagan on this thread, as anyone with eyes will notice. And you did it to bolster your hero. I can't begin to describe my contempt for this kind of tactic. You ought to be damn ashamed of yourself.
You're willing to write off Bush completely (and your heroic Prime Minister) because you have a notion that Reagan somehow embodied conservatism better than Bush does.
Now you're lying. I have been a staunch defender of President Bush on the Iraq War and much besides. I have had enough of his spending policies, and this Harriet Miers episode has shown in stark terms that when he makes a mistake that his defenders will stop at nothing to smear those who have doubts about his wisdom in this instance. You are a perfect advertisement of why conservatives turn against Bush - this haughty, holier than thou attitude which suggests Bush does little wrong is absolutely terrible, and what is more is that now you're defining greatness down with your spin against Reagan. Go to hell.
Reagan was, and Bush is, a pragmatic politician. Both men compromised to get some things done. Neither is an "all-or-nothing" conservative, as are some on this website.
Reagan was pragmatic, because he had something that Bush didn't have to contend with - a Democrat congress constantly blocking him. The Republicans are in control of both Houses, they control the Executive. If we don't have all now, when will we? If a Republican Legislative branch and a Republican President can't put the stop on excessive Federal spending, who will? If they cannot, then there is no point - all the arguments we've had with the Left are entirely meaningless, it's just a matter of spend and tax now, or spend, borrow now, and tax later.
That's how they got elected president, and why the uber-conservatives will never get elected to anything.
You have sold your soul. Power means more to you than principle. God help you.
Ivan
Yes, they lied when he asked them how they'd be as Justices, then.
Ivan
As I pointed out earlier, and I will not point out again, Libya went through great pains to avoid being detected as being involved in Lockerbie. It wasn't until years later that involvement was established. And then it was much later that actually the Libyans admitted it. Libya was frightened, obviously, and rightly so.
Where the hell were you a three weeks ago, when President Bush uttered the famous words in a WOT speech, that are usually uttered here by FReepers to describe militant Islam as "Islamofascism"? A bold pronouncement, in light of the fact that President's are stereotypically known to usually try to be "above the fray" and diplomatic in their statements. A bold statement in a most bold speech on it's own, even if it got ignored or overlooked by those like you.
Reagan called the Soviet Union the Evil Empire - and he fought them in every corner. I don't see President Bush turning the screws on Saudi.
You just can't willingly face up to the fact that Reagan was no God, Reagan is no Bush, Bush is no Reagan.
Reagan is the seminal political figure of our times. What you cannot face, and what is horrendous, is that you want to define his greatness down, so that Bush comes near to approaching it. Wake the hell up!
I'm not crazy about Bush on many fronts, yet at the same time, I'm not going to ignore the fact that Reagan, as great as he was to this nation and free people everywhere, had his faults. In fact, you won't find anywhere in Reagan's legacy where he balanced a budget, reduced government spending, cut taxes across the board, or shrunk the size of government.
I posted a link to Cato above showing Reagan's record. This legacy must also be seen in line with the fact he had a Democrat congress to contend with. In the Great Man's words, "Not bad. Not bad at all."
Ivan
So Barry Goldwater lied to him? That's a stretch.
Your statement makes no sense. Pull your head out of your rectal cavity and breathe oxygen for a while.
Ivan
This is exactly right.
Uh no. Not true. You fell short of the mark, but, nice try though.
Knock off the personal attacks.
It's not my fault that you made the mistake of getting involved on this thread and spouted off foolish statements. I find it irritating in the extreme that an Englishman has to step into battle with American conservatives to defend Ronald Reagan. What the hell is wrong with you people, have you all lost your minds?
Ivan
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.