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."
Read up this thread - I posted articles and facts about Reagan. What am I supposed to do when people thoroughly ignore it and carry on their merry way towards trashing someone I admire? Give you the Victoria Cross? Debate is only possible with someone who is willing to acknowledge what you say. I took what sinkspur said seriously, double checked and came back with links.
It's a common trait on the left that they're so blinkered they only respond to being kicked hard. It's not my fault that some on the Right have displayed this quality too as of late.
Ivan
I'm sure Reagan would be the first to tell you to knock it off. He supported his fellow Republicans with his eleventh commandment. Mr. Bush ain't perfect, but he's doing a good job in trying times with less than 50% of support from the people.
I agree that President Reagan would not have responded personally. But his friends certainly would have fired back!
Ivan
Which is in direct contrast to when you said: "Baloney. Bush was pushing making these cuts permanent all summer!".
Guess you had to backpedal to the truth.
I have heard some congressmen pushing for it but not Bush. Gotta pay for Katrina, drug benefits under medicaid, no child left behind, and Wilma, you know?
I don't think we have to dishonor anybody, just because the times and events work out differently than perfect. GWB isn't Reagan, nor should he be, nor has he claimed to be.
There is an old saying that "The times make the man", and it is especially true of Presidents. There are many things that conservatives wish Reagan could have been *more* conservative about, but the realities of the times are not some vacuum into which all possible actions can be fed.
Same with GWB. His challenges in his term have been some orders of magnitude beyond what most of us thought they would be when he was first elected in November of 2000. He has risen to that challenge, and the times have made the man. Priorities and agendas are fixed for you, most of the time.
The great relief for conservatives (and a good number of democrats) should be that it was not Al Gore in office on Sept 11.
So did I.
What am I supposed to do when people thoroughly ignore it and carry on their merry way towards trashing someone I admire?
I don't know, that's for you to decide, but in your case, I personally wouldn't resort to attacking posters personally.
Debate is only possible with someone who is willing to acknowledge what you say. I took what sinkspur said seriously, double checked and came back with links.
I understand that, but you attacked me with childish banter. Debating is one thing, it's how you engage in the debate that matters. I acknowledged it at first as "hysterics", yet you continued with it, and I discounted it as personal attacks.
It's a common trait on the left that they're so blinkered they only respond to being kicked hard.
No, what common on the left is they resort to personal attacks, something which you fully engaged yourself without thinking about your composed posts. You're given a chance to take back what you said, as this forum has a built in "firewall" of sorts, but you didn't take that chance obviously. It was only until that point which I defended MY honor as a civil debater on this forum that you went on defense.
No, sinkspur said that, not I.
Ronald Reagan was a great president, and George Bush still has the plenty of time to be one, with his WOT firmly a part of a great legacy.
But, both are men, and both have made mistakes.
You're really bordering on whingeing.
I understand that, but you attacked me with childish banter. Debating is one thing, it's how you engage in the debate that matters. I acknowledged it at first as "hysterics", yet you continued with it, and I discounted it as personal attacks.
You seem more concerned with how I say something rather than what I say. Interesting.
No, what common on the left is they resort to personal attacks, something which you fully engaged yourself without thinking about your composed posts.
Let's put this in perspective - sinkspur, and let's be honest, is perhaps one of the most vile posters when it comes to personal attacks - and I'm not speaking as a victim of them, just as a general observation. The attacks on people here who have dared to say anything negative about Harriet Miers have been just terrible - for example, Ann Coulter, the old standby of the conservative movement - is called everything from an anorexic harpie to much, much worse. You can withstand being kicked a little when you're not paying attention when something important is being said.
You're given a chance to take back what you said, as this forum has a built in "firewall" of sorts, but you didn't take that chance obviously. It was only until that point which I defended MY honor as a civil debater on this forum that you went on defense.
I start off civil. When people don't respond to that, then I attack until they DO pay attention. It is instructive however that you're turning this thread into one long complaint about me. I am only concerned about ensuring that it's clear to those reading that the greatness of Ronald Reagan stands the test of time. You're more concerned about whether or not I'm being nice to you.
Ivan
I'm the one stamping my feet? I could just as easily say that you are the one by trying to dismiss Reagan's shrinkage of government's share of GDP, which had been rising over time - and this was in spite of a Democrat Congress holding the purse strings. You simply keep forgetting this, don't you - Reagan had to fight a pitched battle against Tip O'Neill for years just to hold down the rate of growth. Bush, in contrast, has a Republican Congress to work with. He should be able to get things done. But he can't even emulate this achievement.
Ronald Reagan was a great president, and George Bush still has the plenty of time to be one, with his WOT firmly a part of a great legacy.
I agree Bush has time to reverse course. He will have to remember Reagan's combination of uncompromising opposition to the totalitarian foe of the day and constant charm offensives to try and at least push government backwards as far as he can - NOT expand the Department of Education, for example.
Ivan
Agreed. Yet by the same token, pointing out facts, regardless of who we're talking about is not dishonoring the person, whether those facts are good or bad.
GWB isn't Reagan, nor should he be, nor has he claimed to be.
I will acknowledge this as truth, for I have various issues with the current White House that I am not totally thrilled about, just like various issues and policy positions that Reagan took that I don't agree with. Reagan was a great man in his time, history will be kind to Bush as well when he leaves office. That doesn't take away the fact that I have problems with this administration with regards to certain aspects of his domestic agenda, and a foreign policy of Bush's with regards to trying to couch Israel for merely defending themselves from sworn enemies, namely the Palestinians. I've already made myself clear with Bush's border agenda on numerous occasions. I think it stinks.
Marking for reply later. Gotta get on an airplane.
No, I'm not bordering on whingeing [sic]. I'm not even close to whining. I'm merely defending my honor as a civil poster, something you have a slight problem with.
You seem more concerned with how I say something rather than what I say.
Deal with it. I turned the other cheek and you slapped me. I'm not here to be your personal punching bag when you're rage is pent up, just because facts got your hair stood up on end.
The attacks on people here who have dared to say anything negative about Harriet Miers have been just terrible - for example, Ann Coulter, the old standby of the conservative movement - is called everything from an anorexic harpie to much, much worse.
Well, I wouldn't go that far in describing Ann Coulter, but I will say, she has gone off the deep end a long time ago. I lose a certain amount of respect when someone attacks somebody whom I respect and admire. I'm sure you would agree. President Bush hasn't had it easy. His administration was put to the test the moment he stood on the rubble of the WTC.
I start off civil. When people don't respond to that, then I attack until they DO pay attention.
So do I, but you obviously launched into me as if I was the "most vile poster" on this forum.
You can withstand being kicked a little when you're not paying attention when something important is being said.
How can I ignore it, when I'm getting kicked by you in posts directed by you?
It is instructive however that you're turning this thread into one long complaint about me.
Complaint and criticism are two different things. I wasn't complaining about you, which leaves being critical about how you've conducted yourself thus far.
I am only concerned about ensuring that it's clear to those reading that the greatness of Ronald Reagan stands the test of time.
You've obviously concerned yourself with the facts that got in your way.
You're more concerned about whether or not I'm being nice to you.
You shouldn't have to be told to restrain yourself.
Sorry. You said the same thing I did.
No one should do your homework for you.
Your jumping in to defend him confused me. All I was asking for was confirmation of what he claimed. I did look it up and could not find where "Bush was pushing making these cuts permanent all summer!
Would you dare compare that out-and-out criminal rogue to a decent honest person like the current President of the United States?
Of course YOU would.
I'm not comparing, simply exposing the hypocrisy of those who cannot think for themselves.
"""Too bad GWB cannot hold a candle to Reagan. Too bad for America.""
Reagan raised your taxes twice(1982 TEFRA and 1983 SS)...how many times has GWB raised your taxes?
""He is loyal to his staff...
You mean cronies, don't you?""
What would call Meese and Deaver?
""Very true. They were all over Reagan, the biggest complaints seeming to be: "What kind of conservative is he? He hasn't single-handedly banned abortion, run a surplus, or destroyed the Democratic Party yet!"""
do any of teh pathetic ankle biters know that Reagan signed a bill legalizing abortion in CA in 1967?
FACTS:
Bush cut taxes
Reagan cut them in 1981, then raised them in 1982 and 1983
Reagan signed a bill legalizing abortion in CA in 1967
Reagan gave amnesty to illegals
Reagan nearly gave away our entire nuclear deterrent in Iceland in 1986
I love Reagan but there is an afflictino that some on the right suffer from. It is called "Reagan the Ideal" Those who suffer from it conviently forget Reagans past transgressions but are only to eagar to highlight the littlest transgression by GW Bush
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.