And after more consideration, it occurs to me (with a gasp) that Bush's amnesty efforts are reminiscent of Reagan's amnesty. Ugh; I hope not.
Is Bush the next Reagan?
Well, let's look at the real annualized percent growth in various kinds of government spending: total, defense, domestic, entitlement, and discretionary.
Reagan (two terms, Dem Congress)
2.6, 4.4,-1.2, 2.0, 1.9
Bush (first term, GOP Congress)
5.6, 8.8, 7.1, 4.7, 8.0
In each of these categories Bush grew the budget at least twice as fast as Reagan; their spending records have little in common.
Source: http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0510-26.pdf
Dear Lord, keep him safe and alert.
see tagline
They forgot 2 comparisons. They both spent like drunken saliors and they both gave amnesty to illegal immigrants.
Right about these items BUT he is WRONG about giving 'amnesty to illegal immigrant lawbreakers'----especially those who fly a mex flag above the one I spent 5 years of my life defending---if he continues to push for breaking our laws for his favorite people, he will go down in history as destroying the USA
Reagan did some pretty stupid stuff too, but was a far better president than Bush will ever be judged to have been.
I am not so sanguine that Islam can be as easily uprooted and tossed on the ash-heap of history as Communism was. Still the point about Bush's critics is sound: they are the same folks who were wrong at every turn in the end-game of the Cold War, and they haven't even given us a "gee, we were wrong, sorry. . ." and now they expect us to take their analyses of the present conflict seriously?
But, but, who's the next Bush?
Now I'm really confuuuuused! I thought that Reagan was the next Teddy Roosevelt, therefore Reagan couldn't have been Reagan, therefore Bush can't be the next Reagan!
The next Reagan??
If GWB keeps up this push to turn America into Mexico North, he'll be remembered more like wimpy Ronnie-boy Jr. Reagan than Ronaldus Maximus Reagan.
As much as I loved and heralded George W. Bush these past five years, that's how much I reject his suicidal push to transform the America I know and love into a third world nation.
Until three months ago, I would have walked barefoot over broken glass from the Atlantic to the Pacific to support President George W. Bush.
I was the guy at parties who would get in the face of anybody who said anything negative or disrespectful about GWB.
Now, when I look at him I get depressed and sick at the thought of GWB's bogus new mantra....
"READ MY LIPS. NO NEW AMNESTY."
Refreshing post. Thanks.
Except that Bush is not Reagan. And I say this as a "bushbot."
To compare Bush in any way, shape or form to President Reagan is a demeaning act toward President Reagan. Bush at his best could never rise to Reagan at his worst.
Bush is the next Reagan?" Where have I heard it before? Oh yeah, 'Bobby Vee is the next Buddy Holly' and 'Michael Bolton is the next Otis Redding'!
They argue now that Islamic Fundamentalism will never fall - it will
Wrong! It's jealousy has survived since the days of Ishmael and later Esau it will not go away by a Bush magic wand. Indeed be very leery of one who brings such peace it is a false one and a great deception to the world very short lived.
They argue now that the insurgency is too strong - it isn't
Again these tribes have fought amongst themselves for 3500 plus years and have a deep rooted hate. Reality says it's not gonna happen. History days it's not gonna happen. The Bible spells out be watchful when Islam makes peace with the world.
They argue now that middle eastern countries will never be our allies - they will be
And may well turn on you in the next mis-step when it involves another M.E. nation.
-They argued then that people without God could never embrace democracy - they did They argue now that Muslims will never embrace democracy - they will
Uh the people in those nations {Former Soviet etc were Christian under persecution by their government} This article has more holes than swiss cheese.
They argue now democracy isn't universal to Middle Easterners - it will be
Oh please! As such except for very brief periods it never has been. Bush will not alter 3500 plus years of history and hate in that region.
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.
Good grief who wrote this propaganda? How blind can a nation be? The Middle East will never be at peace except when the world as a whole is deceived into a FALSE PEACE brokered by the former Roman Empire and involving the former Soviet Union, the Middle East, and the former Roman Empire.
The only thing this man is doing is helping usher in such a global system which leads to this very thing. Yes indeed such as he will be seen in the eyes of most as being a prophet and a great leader. He is no Ronald W. Reagan and to imply him as ever being such is an insult to a much greater man than Bush will ever be. Reagan didn't seek the advice of fools and then act on it. That right there is the major difference between the two men.
Reagan finished the Cold War. Bush comes towards the beginning or middle -- not at the end -- of the current struggle. Reagan comes across as a great achiever. Bush is more of a visionary -- whose vision others will have to fulfill -- like Wilson or Truman or maybe Kennedy.
This guy is insane.
Bush is mediocre at best, and has the potential to go down as one of the worst Presidents in American history.
He signed into law McCain-Feingold, a blatantly unconstitutional law abriging political speech, in the mistaken hope that it would be overturned by the Supreme Court. The liberals who ran the Court at that time - predictably - did not. Now we have a law which benefits Democrats as apparently the newspapers can say what other people cannot.
But MOST of all, he has consistently and steadily refused to enforce laws to protect our borders, particularly the southern border and conspired with a foreign leader - Vicente Fox and American corporate interests who rely on cheap foreign labor - to violate his oath to protect and defend the COnstitution of the United States, which includes Federal Laws and our immigration laws. In doiing so, he has defied the overwhelminig majority of Americans and endangered the control of his party in COngress.
Bush is now presiding over the transformation of what was once a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic nation united under an common social system and language into another South American bananna republic.
As for the war on terror, Bush did a good job in Afghanistan and initially in Iraq. But what started out as a conflict to protect us against Islamic atttacks and should have immediately been expanded to exterminate the governments of all terror states in the Middle East has become bogged down into a Crusade to create a new social experiment - a Democracy in an area where history, culture and social norms for over four thousand years has never had one - and it isn't working.
He should have had our military destroy Saddam and his political machine, move on to wipe out the ayatollahs and Syrian Baathists, and then simply pulled out. By remaining there to work on his scheme of nation-building, he is waging a long defensive war - one the American public psyche is poorly designed to accept, and a type of war in which the advantage lies with the aggressor, not the passive or active defender.
Don't even use "Bush" and "Reagan" on the same page, let alone in the same sentence.