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.
Me neither but it's certainly alot better than the 29% that was quoted...I'm just trying to give it some reality.
Newtie did a whole lot of damage to himself by strapping on Clintonista kneepads and caving; not to mention his own wee sex scandal.
Yep, I recall the budget show down didn't go very well and I believe Newt (and Livingstn) were both gone before the fall '98 impeachment.
Remember, Newit was a target by the left and they went after him every chance they could
Yes, it's my humble belief that Clinton's wanted Newt to win his majority in '94 so that they would have "evil conservatives" to blame.
It is a good thing Jim Robinson doesn't "poll" or "rate" our posts in order to determine our worthiness, isn't it??
And FWIW....Reagan always praised FDR to the skies. He was definitely another president much revered by Reagan. ;^)
Don't tell me that I 'didn't say that.' I've even said it several times on this thread.
Both great leaders. Both great men. Both conservatives. Neither perfect.
I don't like it.
Reagan did some pretty stupid stuff too, but was a far better president than Bush will ever be judged to have been.
Thanks for helping me out...I was trying to be reasonable and actually list a few good items...even if my memory got confused a little on the Senators as to when they were elected and even forgot one(Martinez)... but nothing is ever good enough...the hate overwhelms them all...sad. The lucky one was Klintoon who never did a thing when different events happened but they liked that and all the jobs(that he has nothing to do with) numbers were all just wonderful and then came 911 on President Bush's watch...so, he lied and people died. Wonder if EV saw Flight 93? Surely hope so. I give up but did try.
Thank you!
The way you just posted about Reagan, is the way that I wish critics of President Bush would..
By sticking to certain things he has/hasn't done..
Rather than just repeating dem talking points, and getting personally nasty about him.
Good post.
Enough to win.
RED LIGHT PHRASE ALERT---
"spent like drunken sailor".....
disregard this post.
So then, using the above mentioned axiom, if federal government spending was ~22.5% of GDP during Reagan's years and ~19.5% of GDP during Bush's years, then Americans have gained more freedoms.
Right?
It's one of my pet peeves, and makes me think significantly less of the person who does it.
That verse in Corinthians doesn't even come close to supporting your politics.
And President Bush didn't follow Carter, whom even most Dems hated. But, he DID get the most votes, ever garnered by any president. :-)
No, you can NOT count! You believe that the three branches of government are both Houses and the presidency, when every fifth grader know that that is but TWO.
I dare say that "problem" has never gone away, either.
Great point.
The number of states hardly matters, when one wins. But, since you want to play silly games, how many states did Nixon carry, dear, when he won re-election? :^)
Quite true, but then, what can you expect from someone who has NO idea what comprises the THREE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT? LOL
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.