Replies

>>>>>If you are going be bring Reagan up, you can't turn around and hide behind the "he is dead" argument.

LOL Whose hiding. I'm not. Never did. I spelled out the facts and spoke to the truth. Always happy to defend Reagan and told you that in no uncertain terms. Revealing you as a whiny, cheap shot artist has also been most satisfying.

Criticism against any elected official is steeped in the very best tradition of American politics, going back to the Founding Fathers. People like you who ignore the factual truth, always revert to obfuscation and historic revisionism.

The Reagan legacy has been written, and its a great one. The Bush legacy is yet to be written. So far, however, Bush has a long way to go convincing folks he's done a good job. Most people know better. Not only do conservatives know that Bush is no Reagan, all American`s are well aware of that fact too. Reagan united the American people behind common goals. Bush has divided America.

The truth is no problem for me. Your problem is, you're not satisfied with the answers your getting. TOUGH! Here we are almost two weeks after the election and you're still throwing temper tandrums because people won't agree with you. Hey, if you want to rehabilitate the Bush Presidency, have at it.

Bottomline. The American people have voted, and sadly, they rejected Republican Party politics and its leader, GW Bush. Conservatives wanted to send a message to the Republican Party, and they did. That message was loud and clear. Ignore the conservative agenda, ignore conservatives and you'll pay the price. If the GOP continues to emulate the Bush-Rove strategy of 2006, 2008 will be an even bigger defeat for Republicans.

>>>>But then, he never was able to get a Republican congress in the first place to lose.

Neither did Bush. Gingrich brought the GOP its Congressional majority in 1994. Bush was handed a Congressional majority on a silver platter, and he lost it!

I'll tell ya what. Why don't you ask the Wizard of Oz to give you a brain, a heart and some courage, to face the facts of life. A return to the Party of Reagan is my objective between now and the 2008 election. If you want to stick to the failed policies and politics of GW Bush, go for it. Now, unless you have something new to bring to this debate. I'm done.

"LOL Whose (sic) hiding. I'm not. Never did." Oh baloney! You brought up Reagan and the turned around and said merely pointing to his record was a "cheap shot" because he's dead. Sorry, that is a Cindy Sheehan tactic and you know it. YOU brought him up. YOU are using his legacy and now YOU have to either defend it or admit that part of Reagan's success was due to his political will to compromise. "I spelled out the sfacts and spoke to the truth." And yet you STILL haven't explained Reagan's appointment of O'Conner, among other things.......

"People like you who ignore the factual truth, always revert to obfuscation and historic revisionism." Yeah right! Please cite for me where I ignored the truth. Do tell! I've acknowledged his greatness in the Cold War and the economic success of his and Kennedy's tax cut model, which Bush successfully replicated. I'm the one who has presented the whole truth of Reagan's record and you're the one who refuses to acknowledge that Reagan's record is NOT one of pure conservatism.

"Reagan united the American people behind common goals. Bush has divided America." So now you're blaming Bush because liberals hate Bush more than they love our country? You're blaming him because they would rather see us fail in Iraq than let Bush get any credit for defeating terrorism? Unreal! On the one hand you blame Bush for trying to work with the democrats. Then you turn around and blame him for "dividing" America. Make up your mind. This country was "divided" since the 2000 election. Bush made the mistake of thinking that working with democrats would win good will. Unfortunately, the political discourse of the day does not allow that. Reagan was able to work with Tip O'Neill and be congenial. Nowadays, politics is like a junior high lunchroom and if you dare stray from your table, you'll catch hell from your own side. How petty. Again, Reagan is fortunate that he didn't have to govern in that climate.

" Your problem is, you're not satisfied with the answers your getting. TOUGH!" No doubt! "He did it as a last resort" is not an answer! Maybe that is satisfactory to a cultist like yourself who is so afraid of shattering his illusion about his hero that he would rather say "They made Reagan do it" than admit Reagan made his own choices and it was the pragmatic thing to do. And, BTW, I'm still waiting on that explanation of how, "Conservatism works every time it is tried" worked out for Santorum and Hayworth!

"Here we are almost two weeks after the election and you're still throwing temper tandrums because people won't agree with you." Nope, here it is almost 2 weeks after the election and I'm shaking my head in utter amazement at the delusional levels to which some will go to pretend uncompromising conservatism is something that ever existed or could exist in the practical world.

"That message was loud and clear. Ignore the conservative agenda, ignore conservatives and you'll pay the price." Right! Poor Ahhhnold is still licking his wounds. I notice that you completely IGNORED my point that Bush did, indeed, respond to conservative demands on the Supreme Court, Dubai ports and the fence. If your spin is correct that conservatives called the shots in this election, "the loud and clear" message seems to be: "There is no pleasing conservatives, unless your name happens to be Ronald Wilson Reagan. Then you get a pass for all your moderate decisions. So you might as well do whatever the heck you want." Yep, the message is about as clear as mud and Bush got it. "They want me to be like Reagan? OK, amnesty it is ! I got the message!"

"Neither did Bush. Gingrich brought the GOP its Congressional majority in 1994." Gingrich brought the GOP majority by nationalizing the election -- something Mehlman failed to do. Of course, the fact that turnout was in the mid-thirty percent range didn't hurt matters either. "Bush was handed a Congressional majority on a silver platter, and he lost it!" LOL! So he gets absolutely NO credit for the unprecedented GAINS in congress in 2002 - just the blame in 2006! Again, as Coulter noted, it is expected that the sitting president's party loses seats in the midterms. What was truly phenominal is that Bush actually GAINED seats in 2002. Even your god, Ronald Reagan LOST seats. Bush lost more because he had more to lose. Got it? If conservatism works "every time it is tried", how did Reagan LOSE seats? Why didn't he sweep in a majority? Do you suppose it was conservatives sitting home because he wasn't conservative enough? LOL!

I like the "novel" way you countered my "Santa" with your "Wizard". I hear if you click your heels together three times while repeating, "Cheap pot shot", "cheap pot shot", "cheap pot shot" you can declare yourself the champion of the rebuttal. Instead of running off demanding that I bring something "new" to the debate, why don't you address the "old" points you have completely dodged?