Posted on 06/04/2006 2:24:14 PM PDT by nuconvert
Bush is the Next Reagan
Jun 4, 2006
Slater Bakhtavar - Persian Journal
The same people who heavily criticized former President Reagan for his tough stance against Communism and for his aggressive push for democracy in Eastern Europe are now attacking President Bush for his tough stance against fundamentalism and his aggressive push for democracy in the Middle East.
-They argued then that Communism would never fall - it did They argue now that Islamic Fundamentalism will never fall - it will
-They argued then that the Soviet Union is too strong - it wasn't
They argue now that the insurgency is too strong - it isn't
-They argued that Reagans vision of democracy in East Europe would never work - it did
They argue now that Bushs vision of democracy for the mid-east would never work - it will
They argued then that Reagans evil empire speech was a failure - it wasn't
They argue now that Bushs axis of evil speech is a failure - it won't be
-They argued then that former soviet bloc countries wouldn't embrace democracy - they did
They argue now that middle east countries would never embrace democracy - they will
-They argued then that Eastern Europeans nations would never be our allies - they are
They argue now that middle eastern countries will never be our allies - they will be
-They argued then that people without God could never embrace democracy - they did
They argue now that Muslims will never embrace democracy - they will
-They argued then that President Reagan was unrealistic - he wasn't
They argue now that President Bush is unrealistic - he'll prove he isn't
-They argued then democracy isn't universal to former Communists - it was
They argue now democracy isn't universal to Middle Easterners - it will be
-They argued then that funding of pro-democracy groups in Eastern European countries won't work - it did
They argue now that funding of pro-democracy groups won't work in the Middle East - it will
The same exact critcism was directed at Reagan. The future will be the judge of President Bush and my guess is that he will be judged as the Great Liberator of the Middle East.
NOT this Republican Congress, with a Dem President...
NO WAY!!!
Not me. Bush is a big government guy because America wants big government. And, the next president will also be a big government guy, no matter how much conservatives howl about it.
AMNESTY!
Does that mean that Reagan's amnesty was right? No.
If Free Republic was around then, and we had a 9/11, I would be raising heck over that amnesty as well.
President Bush has done yoeman work in the WOT. He would be more effective in that war if he was not so pig headed(principled), take your choice, concerning illegal aliens.
I hope not... I really think we should be starting a 'Draft Rep Pence' movement.
It has become necessary to 'tear down Reagan' by pointing to the historic FACT that he made mistakes.
But it is only his deification created in order to beat up Bush that has made it necessary.
No whining by the guilty party, please..........
"I totally doubt it. Recognizing and countering the threat of militant Islam put him in at least the top 10 IMHO."
Well, it has yet to be determined whether GWB's moves against terror will be enduring. If, as I suspect is quite possible, that Afghanistan and Iraq return to the typical muslim state of dysfunction within 5 years, what will GWB have accomplished that merits a place in the top 10?
Recognizing a problem doesn't get you a place in history. Unambiguously solving one MIGHT get you one. Hence, Reagan has his place amongst the greatest of presidents.
What you say could happen, but I think history will show otherwise for the reasons I've outlined.
Zippety-doo. They're "temporary". Deck chair rearrangement on the Titantic. He had a shot at enacting fundamental tax reform, and didn't have the guts.
2 conservative Supreme Court Justices...
As yet untested, and only under tremendous pressure from the very people that this President's political advises despise...conservatives.
...personally campaigned and helped increase the Senate by 5 seats in a off year which isn't supposed to happen...Talent, DeMint, Coleman, Ensign, Sununu. Sorry if if my memory didn't serve me exact but think it's pretty close...and President Bush worked hard for each of them.
The chosen few. His political people actively opposed many conservatives in congressional races over the course of the last six years, and when their RINO candidates lost primaries, gave the conservative nominees no funds and no active support. The seats won were in spite of them, not because of them, largely.
The unemployment number is presently at 4.6%.
Last time I checked, presidents don't create jobs...except in the public sector. How many new government jobs have been created under the massive new spending this government has enacted, I wonder...
I feel these are some biggies but, yea I know...the WAR...guess that offsets all the good in your eyes.
I support the war, except when the ninnies at the State Department are rolling out the red carpet for terrorists like Abu Mazen, or forcing Israel to cede land to terrorists.
Not in mine when we haven't been hit again since 911 in OUR COUNTRY...any credit there?
Yep, I give them credit for that. But they've been lucky, considering the millions that have crossed our borders unchecked and without knowing who they are since they took office. The jury is still out on how hard that can still come back and bite us.
Giv'em a little credit for working hard every day to protect us instead of having steak dinners for Hollywood everynight...that would be so much more fun.
"Better than Clinton" is not exactly the epitaph you really want for this administration, is it?
I think you mean one moderate and one conservative.
On this issue, and it is the one that counts the most, the President is right on target.
He honestly has tried with all him might and keeps fighting for it. If the next President loses faith, I won't fault Dubya.
What you see as "tearing down Reagan" is really being realistic about Reagan, rather than worshiping like so many on this website and on talk radio do.
I'll keep that in mind. ;-)
Seriously, there's merit to what you state. The electorate does seem to like big-government pols, so it isn't particularly surprising that's what we get. I think a strong/articulate president could argue the case for small government, but don't believe Bush is that person. And that isn't a criticism - I just think that's not where he feels he needs to focus.
Yes. :-)
Reagan was a damn good man... but not perfect
I wouldn't want you at my back, you'd be likely to turn...Why don't you run for President since you seem to be the only one that can do a good job????
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.