Posted on 09/27/2006 4:44:54 PM PDT by ricks_place
LOL! Me too!
Your are right. You can't go back and be a cucumber after you've become a pickle.
This was a submitted opinion from outside the LASlimes. No way on earth would the actual editors of that liberal POS paper write such a thing.
I no longer get the LAT (just moved to Hawaii) and will miss the firestorm all the 'rat readers will hit the letters section with after they read this......
"Stopped watch right twice a day" BUMP
He took it right to the people. It seemed like a much simpler time in the world, maybe just in my world.
I think todays world is lost to us and we are on the way down, slowly ever so slowly.
Where did that wild accusation of giving aid and comfort to OBL in Somalia come from?
Freud needs another butt cast after that one. That would explain BJs tirade, and his sending in the Bergerlar to STEAL NSA documents DURING an investigation!
You are correct,this is an OP ED.
But I think the "Los Angeles Times" may be feeling some heat;)
I am in no way trying to diminish Reagan...but I think some forget that he was an ACTOR before he was the POTUS...which gave him a lot of training in eye contact..and speaking for different "effects"...
I am not saying he wasn't the "Great Communicator"...but for just plain "talkin" I think Bush does purty good...LOL
This is getting VERY interesting. :-)
this from the liberal l.a. times?
trouble down on the farm there huh billy boy?
Ross Perot, and a frivilous electorate (even more) have a lot to answer for.
Six out of ten people did not vote for this guy his first run, and yet he became president. That isn't a hit against the EC; I think it's sound. But it's disconcerting to look at that figure, and even more disconcerting to look at what ensued.
Reagan's brief departure from humble modesty went as far as to say "not bad, not bad at all" in his farewell address from the oval office.
Reagan never once criticized Carter after he was elected President or as former President.
Carter and Clinton, on the other hand, have been despicable.
He didn't get a majority the second time either...49.8%.
And you know what? The worst thing about his first run is that he couldn't come close in comparison to being the man President Bush was. I remember the debates between the two, and President Bush was accused of having 'no vision' and not really caring or being in touch. But the reality was that he was comfortable in his own skin and just wasn't a hukster. I'm not saying he didn't make any mistakes, but he was so clearly the greater man.
At the time Clinton was elected I worked at Xerox and was secretary to the manager of the model makers. 41 men in total, including the manager. None of these guys were union guys and none of them wanted to be union guys, but they were so mad at President Bush and every time I'd ask them to go into some detail as to why they were going to vote against him, their constant refrain was the economy, but they weren't capable of really explaining, in detail, how he was the cause of the poor economy. One model maker finally admitted that he may not have been the cause, but he 'set the tone.' Most of these guys were Reagan republicans, and many of them voted for Perot.
Hard to believe this was printed in the LA Times
hence my sarcastic no-s*** upon hearing of "that woman, Monica Lewinsky" the first time. He didn't seem any more credible this time...I fell over laughing.
Great article, spot on.
"President Me"...LOL! Exactly!
Of course, President Reagan WAS a great president and a great man.
THE ABOVE MASS MURDER OF THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT AMERICANS WAS THE INHERITANCE OF 8 YEARS UNDER THE CLINTOONS.
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.