Replies

hey.

I had this sent to me in FR mail as this person and I discussed the Bush trashing on here:

"I've looked at the history of a few posters and found them to be Pat Buchanan supporters, Reagan only, or staunch libertarians. That explains quite a bit"

This was my reply:

Funny, I think youre right. And libertarians and Reaganites in agreement says much for their accuracy in degrading Bush.
A few things about reagan (and I do appreciate his service as Pres):
1. He was an actor and at home with talking in fornt of a camera and acting. Not that he lied; but he knew how to sell himself to the public, and that is NOT a plus IMO. It means Clinton took notes.
2. People who say "Bush is no Reagan": well DUH. And there could be many who would say "Reagan was no Lincoln" or "reagan was no washington", but Lincoln and Washington did not live in the same generation as Reagan. It does not mean that Regan=good/Bush=bad (or "not as good as Reagan" or "Bush needs to be Reagan". Thats just stupid talk).
3. Reagan did NOT have any of the societal, economic or world problems during Office that Bush has. To assume Bush should handle it like Reagan would have is assinine; no one could say how Reagan would react to 9-11, Katrina, WoT, a depression, anarchists marching regularaly in our streets...
To compare Reagan and Bush in any way is idiotic. IMO. I may not agree with Bush at every turn, I do trust him, more than I trust my opinion of him.

But I did send a second one to correct an error;

i take some of that back; i forgot reagan inherited a 10% unemployment from carter. but the economy is better now than it ever was under reagan

Now Miss Marple, you know you asked me this the other day and I responded.

Let me add a few things I did not mention in my response the other day. George Bush responded to an attack on the USA on 911. Scumbag failed to respond to the USS Cole attack in 2000, and to multiple attacks on the USA throughout the 1990s, from the WTC in 1993 through the Embassy bombings and many others, and Scumbag never even gave bin Laden a response after bin Laden declared was on the USA in 1995. You don't get a more striking difference between Scumbag (and the RAT apathy toward national security) than this simple comparison.

I also was thrilled when Condi Rice was brought into the admin for the simple fact she was a Russian expert. I dreamed of Russia and the USA becoming very close and even allies. That extreme did not materialize yet, but at least we have had decent relations.

The best thing about Bush is Laura and George are just so damn nice and good decent people, where as Scumbag and Scumbagette were like cancerous, slimy slugs.

As to legislation, I find it impossible to latch onto anything positive, since the budgets have been so expansionary in social welfare.

It should not be the purpose of a conservative activist to "find areas to praise President Bush on." Conservative activists should spend their time watching the radar scope and shooting down all "bogeys" that appear, such as leftist legislation, new entitlements, etc. Conservatism is not a "RAT or GOP" thing or a "Bush thing". Conservative, limited government agenda is what it is. Agendas and proposals and spending, etc. are either conservative or socialist, and party representation should have anything to do with one's pro or con opinion on it.

Should Scumbagette be elected in 2008 and slice the budget drastically and eliminate a lot of Bush's spending increases, I will be thrilled as a conservative, even though Scumbagette will always be a slimy two-faced POS.

Likewise, even though I love Laura and George, I hate the anti-conservative agenda. I am simply a conservative, Miss Marple.