House Republicans Choose Rep. John Boehner as Minority Leader ( Roy Blunt re-elected per CNN)

Boehner is a good man- No, might not be perfect, but he at least 'gets it' on terror

Christian news and commentary at: sacredscoop.com ...

>>>>So you rephrased your statement.

Trying my best to make it easier for you to understand the historic facts and political reality of events. The number of seat changes, plus or minus, doesn't hold the same significance of losing a majority control of Congress. In terms of losing Congressional power over an extended period of time, Hoover after 14 years and Bush43 after 12 years, are the only two GOP President`s to achieve such an infamous historic defeat, since 1932. A significant downside to any Bush legacy.

>>>>Not based on this remark you made ....

The point you're missing is both obvious and simple to comprehend. That's if you wanted to face the historic record, instead of engaging in historic revisionism.

Reagan had to deal with a Democrat House for his entire Presidency. Democrats controlled the purse strings. That meant Reagan was forced to compromise on certain issues, if he was to attain most of his goals. A good example of a Reagan/Democrat compromise, that was scored a big winner for the President, was his original plan for cutting taxes 30% across the board. Reagan eventually had to settle for a 25% tax cut across the board. A similar case existed after the 1981 tax cuts began taking effect. Revenues started heading south and the deficit was projected to explode and become totally unmanageable. Instead of agreeing with the Democrats and raising federal income taxes, Reagan decided to push for other revenue enhancements, that did increase the gas tax, corporate taxes while closing tax loop holes. Again, with the overall economy struggling after a horrible run of 5-6 years, it was important not to dig the hole any deeper then it already was. One of Reagan's great challenges was to get the US economy back on its feet and moving forward. That he accomplished.

OTOH, Bush43 was handed a sound economy in 2001, with historic low unemployment, inflation and interest rates, and a huge budget surplus to boot. Bush returned the surplus to taxpayers in the form of tax cuts, and that was good. It stimulated spending and investment. Just not savings. Personal savings are at their losest rates since the 1930`s. Bush got the top tax rates down from 39.6% under Clinton, to 35% today. Bush still has a way if he wants to reduce taxes to the 28% level they were at under Reagan.

>>>>Because under Reagan, the Welfare system did increase ...

Not like it has under Bush.

Without having his party in control of the House, Reagan was unable to make extensive cuts in welfare spending, but he did reduce the rate of growth and that in turn reduced the size of the welfare state as a percentage of the annual budget. Till this day, Democrats are still whining about Reagan cutting welfare payments to the poor.

A short analysis based on data located at Bush`s own Office of Management and Budget, OMB.gov shows Bush was no Reagan on many issues of concern to conservatives. Comparing each President's 4th term federal budgets. The 2005 budget being the last closed under the Bush admin, versus the 1985 Reagan admin budget.

*Human Reources: [aka. social welfare & entitlements] Bush spent 64%, Reagan spent 49.9%.

*National Defense: Reagan spent 26.7%, Bush spent 18.6%.

*Non-defense discretionary programs: Bush spent 20.2%, Reagan spent 17.1%.

*Social Security: Bush spent 20.9%, Reagan spent 19.8%.

*Medicare: Bush spent 11.8%, Reagan spent 6.8%.

*Education: Bush spent 2.8%, Reagan spent 1.6%.

This historic data clearly indicates that Bush far outspent Reagan in the area of social welfare & entitlements. Highlighted by Bush`s out of control spending on Medicare. And Bush`s own trillion dollar prescription drug program will undoubtedly raise that level even higher as the years go by. In addition, Reagan's budget had considerably more spending in the area of national defense then did Bush`s budget.

>>>>Not based on this remark you made ...

That stat applies to Bush, not Reagan. As a percentage of GDP, Reagan cut federal spending by 1.0%, while Bush has increased spending by 1.8%, so far. With two yeasr to go, I expect that will also trend upwards.

>>>>>And why is that the only tax that matters?

Its not the only tax that matters. It just matters most.

It gets back to choices. The Democrats controlled the House when Reagan was Prez. Reagan was forced to negotiate and compromise to get his agenda installed, and for all intents and purposes, Reagan got the job done. Reagan's major objectives were accomplished.... tax cuts accomplished; economic recovery plan achieved; military buildup done; welfare state spending reductions successful; and his massive deregualtion effort fullfilled. Not to mention winning the Cold War, dismantling the USSR, the eastern communist bloc and freeing 500 million peole from totalitarian rule.

Bush had a Republican controlled House for six solid years and a GOP Senate for over four years. They passed some instinctive tax cuts into law and that was good. But Bush and the GOP advanced an overall agenda of big government Republicanism.

Bush ignored the political evolution of conservatism ----started by Reagan and furthered by Gingrich ---- and instead promoted and signed into law, the largest welfare state program since Medicare. Bush`s Prescription Drug Program joins LBJ`s Medicare program and FDR`s Social Security program, as tributes to social engineering and social liberalism.

>>>>He raised SS taxes to record highs, all to save a New Deal program, Social Security.

From 1964 to 1980, Reagan preached about privatizing Social Security. When Reagan took office in 1981 he quickly found out that SS was the third rail of American politics. The Democrats wanted no part of privatizing SS, leaving Reagan with few options. The option of letting SS go bankrupt was about to happen. If Reagan didn't take some action, the Democrats would have abnd that would've opened the door for anything goes legislation. Reagan appointed Alan Greenspan as chairman of a SS reform commission. Its job was to come up with a plan to reform Social Security and make it fiscally solvent for the long term. That's exactly what happened. SS withholding rates were raised and payouts were slightly reduced. The agreement between Reagan and the Democrats did have succcess in making SS solvent for 50 years, but sadly, there was no success with private/personal accounts.

Fast forward two decades.

Bush found out in 2005 that SS was the third rail of American politics. Even with a GOP Congress, Bush had absolutely no success in reforming SS. Bush couldn't even get Republicans to go along with limited reform. However, in Bush`s 2005 SOTUS, he mentioned his plan for appointing another bipartisan SS reform commission, similiar to the Monayhan Commission he appointed in 2001. That reform effort dies off quickly. This time Bush will probably fall flat one more time. We shall see.

>>>Not in your recent posts you haven't.

Sure I did. You're not paying attention. See post #222.

"While Bush has done a good with his instinctive tax cuts ... I always give Bush credit for his income tax cuts.

>>>>That meant he had to agree with the Democrats to increase spending and not deal with social issues, such as abortion.

Reagan handled the abortion issue pretty well. In fact, Bush grabbed Reagan's pro-life agenda and ran with it. Both men are considered strong pro-lifers, opposing abortion 95% of the time, while supporting exceptions for rape, incest and the health/life fo the mother.

Reagan's record on abortion:

*Reagan supported legislation that would allow for a challenge of Roe vs. Wade, while promoting a Right to Life amendment to the US Constitution.

*Reagan adopted the "Mexico City Policy" halting federal aid to private groups promoting abortions abroad.

*The Reagan admin cut off funding to the United Nations Fund for Population Activities because the global agency violated U.S. law by participating in China's mandatory abortion program.

*The Reagan admin adopted regulations prohibiting federally funded "family planning clinics" from promoting abortion as birth control.

*Reagan himself introduced the issue of fetal pain into the public debate over abortion.

*The Reagan White House blocked use of federal money for research using the tissue of aborted babies. A forerunner to banning partial birth abortion.

*The Reagan admin helped win approval of the "Danforth Amendment," which said federally funded educational institutions could not be guilty of "sex discrimination" for refusing to pay for abortions.

*The Reagan admin was key in enactment of laws protecting the right to life of handicapped newborns.

*Reagan designated a National Sanctity of Human Life Day, to recognize the value of life at all stages.

*Reagan was the first Prez to address the annual WashDC March for Life. An annual event Reagan always spoke at.

Reagan was America's first pro-life President, post Roe v Wade. His essay, "Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation" spelled out Reagan's strong pro-life position.

"Our nation-wide policy of abortion on demand through all nine months of pregnancy was neither voted for by our people, nor enacted by our legislators--not a single state had such unrestricted abortion before the Supreme Court decreed it to be national policy in 1973. [It was] an act of raw judicial power"...

"Make no mistake, abortion-on-demand is not a right granted by the Constitution. Nowhere do the plain words of the Constitution even hint at a "right" so sweeping as to permit abortion up to the time the child is ready to be born."

"We cannot diminish the value of one category of human life--the unborn--without diminishing the value of all human life."

"Abraham Lincoln recognized that we could not survive as a free land when some men could decide that others were not fit to be free and should therefore be slaves. Likewise, we cannot survive as a free nation when some men decide that others are not fit to live and should be abandoned to abortion or infanticide. My Administration is dedicated to the preservation of America as a free land, and there is no cause more important for preserving that freedom than affirming the transcendent right to life of all human beings, the right without which no other rights have any meaning."

>>>>Reagan grew the welfare state in order to increase military spending.

As I've pointed out in this post, you're deadwrong. Reagan reduced welfare state expenditures and applied those savings to rebuilding the military and improving America's national defense.

Rush Limbaugh's book doesn't address the Presidency of GW Bush, and for good reason. Rush wrote his books in the first half of the 1990`s. Besides, if you want the hard facts, go to OMB.gov. Analyze and evaluate the statistical data for yourself. CATO also has an extensive library of information pertaining to the federal governments executive and legislative branches. Rush`s books were great reading, but they're not a source of ready and reliable up to date data.

>>>>Reagan was fortunate to campaign against Carter, the worst President in our history and Mondale, an unabashed liberal.

LOL Carter and Mondale were both liberals, just like Gore and Kerry were liberals. Reagan won two historic landslides. Bush barely beat Gore in the general election. And if Ohio hadn't hung on for Bush in 2004, Kerry would've been elected prez.

If it wasn't for Sandra Day O'Conner, Algore would have become POTUS in 2001, not Bush. O'Conner wasn't much of a conservative, but we all should thank the Almighty that Reagan appointed her to the SCOTUS. If nothing else, her vote was the deciding factor in the SCOTUS case of Bush v Gore 2001.

>>>>Reagan had no coattails and his landslide win did not translate into GOP dominance.

In the 1980`s liberalism still had a strong grip on the federal government. Liberal Democrats held most of the power at the federal, state and local levels. Yet in the 1980 election, Reagan's coattails brought the GOP its first Senate majority since the 1952 election. A plus 12 Senate seats. While the GOP didn't gain control fo the House, the GOP did realize a 34 seat pickup. Not great, but not bad either. Congressional dominance wouldn't come for the GOP until Newt Gingrich advanced the Contract With America. A governing document, by the way, based on the Reagan agenda.

When Bush became POTUS, the GOP was already the majority party in power. That ended this year and we have Bush to thank for the Democrats regaining control of the Congress.

>>>>His landslide victories prove no more of his leadership then does Nixon victory over McGovern does.

If you really believe that, you're more delusional then I thought you were.

>>>>You are missing the point, if Reagan is to be considered a conservative, so must Bush.

Obviously, you haven't been paying attention for the last five years and ten months. Here's a few charts drawn up by CATO that expresses some true realities about the Bush record.

>>>>Bush is a conservative and his legacy will prove it, just as Reagan's legacy showed that he was also.

You're right about Reagan. Reagan's conservative credentials are rock solid. Can't say the same for Bush. Bush is a solid social conservative, but like his Father, Dubya remains a liberal on most domestic policy and on foreign policy, a globalist of the first order.

The one we wished we had blew away with a sweet warm breeze.

The MSM you are refering to are NOT News organizations and as such I can state emphatically that there is no liberal bias in the MSM.

In fact, the MSM is a network of marketing firms with the DNC as their principal client. The MSM is nothing more than a collection of ad copy writers and spokespeople posing as credentialed journalist with 24/7 access to very powerful marketing channels.

Media Reseach Center, Newbusters, et. al. are part of the problem. They perpetuate the myth.

IMHO

The left knows this and busts a gut everytime we show frustration.

Don't be sucked in by sound bites. Read the full Rummy question and answer and he was dead on. As usual. That quote was out of context and used in a smear job.

Bull (Pardon the Cursing) S*H*I*T- I: Voted for Doubya Twice, Helped in his relection campaign in 2004, Supported Republicans (and even some *real republicans in the primary this year); aka I volunteered on their elections/re-elections: I'M JUST SICK OF ALL THE RINO CRAP: We (as a nation) can't AFFORD it!!

Now Maybe Boehner will do well as minority leader (I don't have high hopes.., but.) We should have elected Mike Pence, he's rock solid (and Reaganesqe if you ask My Opinion..).

Before you make blanke statement that "it's the same old malcontents and unappeasbles" maybe you should actually take into consideration that TRUE CONSERVATIVES may actually be and hold convictions beliefs-becoming fed up with the GOP (or at least RINOS-MODERATES!). And I fully intend on FIGHTING (the Democrats-the liberal agenda).. after this election!

We are turning into Democrats. We actually promote our loosers.

>>>>So you rephrased your statement. Trying my best to make it easier for you to understand the historic facts and political reality of events. The number of seat changes, plus or minus, doesn't hold the same significance of losing a majority control of Congress. In terms of losing Congressional power over an extended period of time, Hoover after 14 years and Bush43 after 12 years, are the only two GOP President`s to achieve such an infamous historic defeat, since 1932. A significant downside to any Bush legacy.

That was not what you said, you said it was the greatest electorial defeat since Hoover.

Now, the fact that Bush lost both Houses must be seen in light of how many seats Bush actually had to lose in the first place.

Moreover, both Ike and Reagan had large landslides and never even gained both Houses.

So, to lay on Bush some horrible legacy because he lost the average of seats in Congress that a President loses is just wrong.

Clinton's defeat in 94 was historical because not only did he lost both Houses, but due to the number of House seats he lost.

>>>>Not based on this remark you made .... The point you're missing is both obvious and simple to comprehend. That's if you wanted to face the historic record, instead of engaging in historic revisionism. Reagan had to deal with a Democrat House for his entire Presidency. Democrats controlled the purse strings. That meant Reagan was forced to compromise on certain issues, if he was to attain most of his goals. A good example of a Reagan/Democrat compromise, that was scored a big winner for the President, was his original plan for cutting taxes 30% across the board. Reagan eventually had to settle for a 25% tax cut across the board. A similar case existed after the 1981 tax cuts began taking effect. Revenues started heading south and the deficit was projected to explode and become totally unmanageable. Instead of agreeing with the Democrats and raising federal income taxes, Reagan decided to push for other revenue enhancements, that did increase the gas tax, corporate taxes while closing tax loop holes. Again, with the overall economy struggling after a horrible run of 5-6 years, it was important not to dig the hole any deeper then it already was. One of Reagan's great challenges was to get the US economy back on its feet and moving forward. That he accomplished.

Reagan cut taxes in 82, but raised them again under the Dole Tax increase.

OTOH, Bush43 was handed a sound economy in 2001, with historic low unemployment, inflation and interest rates, and a huge budget surplus to boot. Bush returned the surplus to taxpayers in the form of tax cuts, and that was good. It stimulated spending and investment. Just not savings. Personal savings are at their losest rates since the 1930`s. Bush got the top tax rates down from 39.6% under Clinton, to 35% today. Bush still has a way if he wants to reduce taxes to the 28% level they were at under Reagan.

Actually, the economy wasn't doing all that well before the Bush Tax Cuts,

The fruits of this additional work, savings and investment are evident. In the two years preceding the cuts, economic growth averaged a paltry 1 percent and too many job-seeking Americans (6 percent) were unemployed. Since then, we have experienced three years of solid 4% growth, 5.4 million new jobs have been created, and the unemployment rate hasn’t budged from its historic low of 4.6%. This growing economy may prove to be Bush’s most impressive domestic policy achievement. http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=16031

He kept it sound despite the Twin Towers, WOT and Katrina

>>>>Because under Reagan, the Welfare system did increase ... Not like it has under Bush.

But it did grow, despite having a popular conservative in the White House.

Without having his party in control of the House, Reagan was unable to make extensive cuts in welfare spending, but he did reduce the rate of growth and that in turn reduced the size of the welfare state as a percentage of the annual budget. Till this day, Democrats are still whining about Reagan cutting welfare payments to the poor.

The biggest cuts to welfare came under the Republican controlled Congress bill that Clinton signed.

The same Republican Congress that is constantly being bashed on these threads.

A short analysis based on data located at Bush`s own Office of Management and Budget, OMB.gov shows Bush was no Reagan on many issues of concern to conservatives. Comparing each President's 4th term federal budgets. The 2005 budget being the last closed under the Bush admin, versus the 1985 Reagan admin budget. *Human Reources: [aka. social welfare & entitlements] Bush spent 64%, Reagan spent 49.9%. *National Defense: Reagan spent 26.7%, Bush spent 18.6%. *Non-defense discretionary programs: Bush spent 20.2%, Reagan spent 17.1%. *Social Security: Bush spent 20.9%, Reagan spent 19.8%. *Medicare: Bush spent 11.8%, Reagan spent 6.8%. *Education: Bush spent 2.8%, Reagan spent 1.6%. This historic data clearly indicates that Bush far outspent Reagan in the area of social welfare & entitlements. Highlighted by Bush`s out of control spending on Medicare. And Bush`s own trillion dollar prescription drug program will undoubtedly raise that level even higher as the years go by. In addition, Reagan's budget had considerably more spending in the area of national defense then did Bush`s budget.

First, stats are very deceiving since they do not give context.

Second, the fact is, Reagan increased welfare spending and raised taxes.

Your argument that it was less then Bush and therefore Reagan was really a conservative is based on a subjective value judgement.

If you increase spending by 5% you are a conservative, if by 7% you aren't.

>>>>Not based on this remark you made ... That stat applies to Bush, not Reagan. As a percentage of GDP, Reagan cut federal spending by 1.0%, while Bush has increased spending by 1.8%, so far. With two yeasr to go, I expect that will also trend upwards.

Reagan cut nothing, the Democratic controlled House did that.

Bush increased nothing, the Republican controlled House did that.

So, Reagan is considered still a conservative at 1%, but Bush not at 1.8%?

LOL.

>>>>>And why is that the only tax that matters? Its not the only tax that matters. It just matters most.

Well, a tax is still a tax, and if you sign your name to the biggest tax increase before Clinton's that is raising taxes.

It gets back to choices. The Democrats controlled the House when Reagan was Prez. Reagan was forced to negotiate and compromise to get his agenda installed, and for all intents and purposes, Reagan got the job done. Reagan's major objectives were accomplished.... tax cuts accomplished; economic recovery plan achieved; military buildup done; welfare state spending reductions successful; and his massive deregualtion effort fullfilled. Not to mention winning the Cold War, dismantling the USSR, the eastern communist bloc and freeing 500 million peole from totalitarian rule.

That is correct, Reagan compromised to accomplish a few major goals.

As has Bush.

He has kept the economy moving despite massive hits to it.

He has fought the war on terror and we have not had an attack on us since 9/11.

He has basically freed two Islamic/terrorist nations.

He also has placed socially conservative judges on the bench.

Bush had a Republican controlled House for six solid years and a GOP Senate for over four years. They passed some instinctive tax cuts into law and that was good. But Bush and the GOP advanced an overall agenda of big government Republicanism.

No different then Reagan.

The entire notion of supply side economics is to grow the economy and not to cut the gov't.

Bush is attempting to move us out of the welfare state into a private ownership one.

Bush ignored the political evolution of conservatism ----started by Reagan and furthered by Gingrich ---- and instead promoted and signed into law, the largest welfare state program since Medicare. Bush`s Prescription Drug Program joins LBJ`s Medicare program and FDR`s Social Security program, as tributes to social engineering and social liberalism.

And Reagan signed the greatest tax increase in history (before Clinton) to save the New Deal Social Security.

>>>>He raised SS taxes to record highs, all to save a New Deal program, Social Security. From 1964 to 1980, Reagan preached about privatizing Social Security. When Reagan took office in 1981 he quickly found out that SS was the third rail of American politics. The Democrats wanted no part of privatizing SS, leaving Reagan with few options. The option of letting SS go bankrupt was about to happen. If Reagan didn't take some action, the Democrats would have abnd that would've opened the door for anything goes legislation. Reagan appointed Alan Greenspan as chairman of a SS reform commission. Its job was to come up with a plan to reform Social Security and make it fiscally solvent for the long term. That's exactly what happened. SS withholding rates were raised and payouts were slightly reduced. The agreement between Reagan and the Democrats did have succcess in making SS solvent for 50 years, but sadly, there was no success with private/personal accounts.

So Reagan compromised and signed a bill that increased taxes.

Fast forward two decades. Bush found out in 2005 that SS was the third rail of American politics. Even with a GOP Congress, Bush had absolutely no success in reforming SS. Bush couldn't even get Republicans to go along with limited reform. However, in Bush`s 2005 SOTUS, he mentioned his plan for appointing another bipartisan SS reform commission, similiar to the Monayhan Commission he appointed in 2001. That reform effort dies off quickly. This time Bush will probably fall flat one more time. We shall see.

Nothing is going to be done about SS until the New Deal generation that loves it dies off.

The younger generation is not depending on it and once private saving accounts are put into it, it will be irrelevant like the rest of the New Deal.

>>>Not in your recent posts you haven't. Sure I did. You're not paying attention. See post #222. "While Bush has done a good with his instinctive tax cuts ... I always give Bush credit for his income tax cuts.

Well, that is very generous of you.

I give Reagan credit for his as well.

>>>>That meant he had to agree with the Democrats to increase spending and not deal with social issues, such as abortion. Reagan handled the abortion issue pretty well. In fact, Bush grabbed Reagan's pro-life agenda and ran with it. Both men are considered strong pro-lifers, opposing abortion 95% of the time, while supporting exceptions for rape, incest and the health/life fo the mother. Reagan's record on abortion: *Reagan supported legislation that would allow for a challenge of Roe vs. Wade, while promoting a Right to Life amendment to the US Constitution. *Reagan adopted the "Mexico City Policy" halting federal aid to private groups promoting abortions abroad. *The Reagan admin cut off funding to the United Nations Fund for Population Activities because the global agency violated U.S. law by participating in China's mandatory abortion program. *The Reagan admin adopted regulations prohibiting federally funded "family planning clinics" from promoting abortion as birth control. *Reagan himself introduced the issue of fetal pain into the public debate over abortion. *The Reagan White House blocked use of federal money for research using the tissue of aborted babies. A forerunner to banning partial birth abortion. *The Reagan admin helped win approval of the "Danforth Amendment," which said federally funded educational institutions could not be guilty of "sex discrimination" for refusing to pay for abortions. *The Reagan admin was key in enactment of laws protecting the right to life of handicapped newborns. *Reagan designated a National Sanctity of Human Life Day, to recognize the value of life at all stages. *Reagan was the first Prez to address the annual WashDC March for Life. An annual event Reagan always spoke at. Reagan was America's first pro-life President, post Roe v Wade. His essay, "Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation" spelled out Reagan's strong pro-life position. "Our nation-wide policy of abortion on demand through all nine months of pregnancy was neither voted for by our people, nor enacted by our legislators--not a single state had such unrestricted abortion before the Supreme Court decreed it to be national policy in 1973. [It was] an act of raw judicial power"... "Make no mistake, abortion-on-demand is not a right granted by the Constitution. Nowhere do the plain words of the Constitution even hint at a "right" so sweeping as to permit abortion up to the time the child is ready to be born." "We cannot diminish the value of one category of human life--the unborn--without diminishing the value of all human life." "Abraham Lincoln recognized that we could not survive as a free land when some men could decide that others were not fit to be free and should therefore be slaves. Likewise, we cannot survive as a free nation when some men decide that others are not fit to live and should be abandoned to abortion or infanticide. My Administration is dedicated to the preservation of America as a free land, and there is no cause more important for preserving that freedom than affirming the transcendent right to life of all human beings, the right without which no other rights have any meaning."

And what was Bush's role in the anti-abortion movement?

It is as conservative as that of Reagan.

>>>>Reagan grew the welfare state in order to increase military spending. As I've pointed out in this post, you're deadwrong. Reagan reduced welfare state expenditures and applied those savings to rebuilding the military and improving America's national defense.

Overall welfare spending went up, stop trying to play the 'percentage of GNP' game.

In total dollars, welfare went up under Reagan, by at least 3% every year.

Rush Limbaugh's book doesn't address the Presidency of GW Bush, and for good reason. Rush wrote his books in the first half of the 1990`s. Besides, if you want the hard facts, go to OMB.gov. Analyze and evaluate the statistical data for yourself. CATO also has an extensive library of information pertaining to the federal governments executive and legislative branches. Rush`s books were great reading, but they're not a source of ready and reliable up to date data.

I did not cite Rush's books, you did.

I gave you an article from Rush, not a citation from his book.

However, the fact is, that welfare spending went up under Reagan-period.

>>>>Reagan was fortunate to campaign against Carter, the worst President in our history and Mondale, an unabashed liberal. LOL Carter and Mondale were both liberals, just like Gore and Kerry were liberals. Reagan won two historic landslides. Bush barely beat Gore in the general election. And if Ohio hadn't hung on for Bush in 2004, Kerry would've been elected prez.

Gore and Kerry did not run as Liberals.

Mondale actually said he would raise taxes.

Gore ran a Southern moderate (like Clinton) and Kerry as a war hero.

Nixon beat McCovern as well in a landslide and Nixon was no conservative.

If it wasn't for Sandra Day O'Conner, Algore would have become POTUS in 2001, not Bush. O'Conner wasn't much of a conservative, but we all should thank the Almighty that Reagan appointed her to the SCOTUS. If nothing else, her vote was the deciding factor in the SCOTUS case of Bush v Gore 2001.

Well, Sandra Day O'Conner followed the law, as did the other Justices who voted the correct way.

The only reason that it went to the Supreme Court is because of Democratic fraud.

Just like Nixon losing to Kennedy in 1960.

This time, however, Bush was not going to allow the Republicans to be robbed of victory.

>>>>Reagan had no coattails and his landslide win did not translate into GOP dominance. In the 1980`s liberalism still had a strong grip on the federal government. Liberal Democrats held most of the power at the federal, state and local levels. Yet in the 1980 election, Reagan's coattails brought the GOP its first Senate majority since the 1952 election. A plus 12 Senate seats. While the GOP didn't gain control fo the House, the GOP did realize a 34 seat pickup. Not great, but not bad either. Congressional dominance wouldn't come for the GOP until Newt Gingrich advanced the Contract With America. A governing document, by the way, based on the Reagan agenda.

And when Reagan left office, had he increased the Republican Majority?

No.

There were fewer Republicans in Congress in 88 then there were in 80.

Despite the great landslide of 84.

When Bush became POTUS, the GOP was already the majority party in power. That ended this year and we have Bush to thank for the Democrats regaining control of the Congress.

No, what we have is the usual 6 year cycle of two term Presidents.

We can thank Bush for capturing the Senate in 02 despite predictions to the contrary.

>>>>His landslide victories prove no more of his leadership then does Nixon victory over McGovern does. If you really believe that, you're more delusional then I thought you were.

Why is that?

McGovern ran as unabashed liberal and Nixon had a massive landslide, like Reagan.

When Liberals run as Liberals they lose.

That is why Clinton ran as a 'moderate' to the 'right' of Bush Sr. and Dole.

As did many of the Democratic winners of Congress.

>>>>You are missing the point, if Reagan is to be considered a conservative, so must Bush. Obviously, you haven't been paying attention for the last five years and ten months. Here's a few charts drawn up by CATO that expresses some true realities about the Bush record.

CATO is not a Conservative organization, it is a Libertarian one.

I am sure they have many criticisms of Reagan as well.

>>>>Bush is a conservative and his legacy will prove it, just as Reagan's legacy showed that he was also. You're right about Reagan. Reagan's conservative credentials are rock solid. Can't say the same for Bush. Bush is a solid social conservative, but like his Father, Dubya remains a liberal on most domestic policy and on foreign policy, a globalist of the first order.

You admitted that Bush cut taxes which is domestic policy.

He appointed a conservative, Bolton, to the UN as well, not very globalist there.

He went to war despite the UN.

It seems that the conservative yardstick that Reagan is judged by is different then the one used to judge Bush.

Lay Off Bush: He's a Conservative
by Rabbi Aryeh Spero
Posted Mar 23, 2006

President Bush is receiving too much criticism from our side complaining he is not conservative. Using the historic criteria, he is conservative enough for me.

The first economic rule for a conservative is to lower taxes and lessen regulations. This the President has done. He did so against the howls of the New York Times set, whose hatchet man Paul Krugman prophesized an "economic depression" if taxes were lowered. Bush stood his ground, and has come back asking that these lower taxes be made permanent.

He did so not only for income taxes but capital gains taxes as well. The President has stood up to the never ending chant that by removing onerous and silly regulations he is ruining the environment and is in the back pocket of big and small business. He fought to open up barren, nondescript wildernesses to oil drilling, where proven reserves have been recorded, even while they've called him a plunderer and a man with "no social conscience".

Contrary to economists, professors, pundits, Democrats and the soft contingent among Republicans, Bush's steadfastness has produced a revived economy of record-breaking consecutive quarters and historically low unemployment. Only a believer in Laffer theory -- which Bush evidently is --- could have withstood for so long the barbs and humiliations that the President has, all in loyalty to conservative economic policies.

Conservatives believe in a strong build-up of Defense needs and the judicious use of military power to solve problems that can't be solved by the corrupt, ineffective, anti-American and anti-Semitic U.N. As realists, conservatives reject the meaningless negotiations that simply give aggressors more time to build up their war and nuclear machines. We've seen the failed byproducts of Carterism and Clintonism.

No liberal would have undertaken a real War on Terror. Liberals such as Clinton, Gore, Carter and Kerry continue to view jihadist barbarism more as criminal offenses than a willful war against the West and would, therefore, have tepidly fought it with Interpol, police and some sporadic lobbing of missiles. Their remedy would have been endless, sickening negotiations implying a sort of moral parity. Most of us would have become utterly demoralized and physically ill. Thanks to Bush, we are not. I may have some questions and differences, but, thank God, I'm not plotzing.

In contradistinction, the President has restocked our military with the latest and best equipment, impervious to the constant accusation of choosing the military over "domestic needs", i.e., more redistribution of others' wealth and expansion of welfare type programs. And he has waged a war against Islamic terror that is serious and bold. Mistakes aside, it is the conviction and implementation that affirms one's conservative bona fides.

He has fought for the much needed Patriot Act, even against timid members of his own party, whom we call the "finer mentschen" (men who always want to be beyond criticism). He did not cave in to those who demanded from day one we close down Gitmo, refrain from interrogating terrorist prisoners and treat them like criminals endowed with all the rights of upstanding U.S. citizens. He has fought for the imperative to screen calls coming from Al Qaeda to sleepers here in America. He has accurately labeled the jihadists as 1) evil and 2) an enemy -- something the politically correct could never bring themselves to do.

He has done this in the face of the greatest, most organized and well-financed attacks against any Republican President in our lifetime. More attacks and vitriol than Ronald Reagan ever received. I was the first rabbi to endorse Reagan, and I loved him as though a favorite uncle, but, truthfully, he did not have to endure the degree and relentless attacks that George Bush has been forced to endure. Against Bush, it is personal, nasty, and 24/7.

And the President has had to do this with a Republican House and Senate far less supportive than they were of Reagan. Bush has no Phil Graham, Jesse Helms, Dick Armey, etc. Our Republican members are today not as feisty as were those during Reagan's time.

The two vacancies on the Supreme Court have been filled by proven Conservatives with a case-load track record, unlike those chosen by Nixon, Eisenhower and Bush I. They are, also, more scholarly and erudite and thus will their opinions be more effective and influential, as has been the case with Justice Scalia.

The economy, the military, the use of power, the lessened dependence on the U.N., and the Courts. What else remains but the social issues. No president has ever spoken in behalf of the unborn, against abortion, as has George Bush -- not even Reagan who authored a pro-life book. Bush has openly stood against the efforts of those wishing to confer on same sex individuals the title "married." He did so in the State of the Union address, in press conferences and in other speeches. He did so with conviction and heart.

Many conservative politicians eschew public declarations on hot social issues. Not Bush. He even came out against government financing of embryonic stem cell research. That was very gutsy. And, he has made religion and the religious an equal and legitimate part and force in American public life -- not simply private but public -- by vigorously pushing for faith-based institutions to receive federal funds for projects considered "in the public good." He has given us an equal playing field -- the first to do so.

To me, a Conservative respects and cements the concept of national sovereignty. By not signing the Kyoto treaty, the President has announced that U.S. manufacturing, and regulations associated with it, remain the exclusive province of our country. Bush undid the pledges of a previous administration that would have submerged our independence to that of a global forum, as well as saying No to the concept of a World Court having power over our military and decisions about when and with whom we go to war. He also abandoned the never ending treaties dictating to us our nuclear quantities. He has saved us from transnationalism.

Best of all, he and his administration do not seem to arise every morning waiting to see if they've been given the OK by the NY Times or Washington Post. It is absolutely refreshing and invigorating to witness leaders not submissive to these editorial pages. Most of today's Republicans as well as the staff of previous Republican administrations have not displayed, what is for me, this delicious indifference. Because George Bush does not take his cue from these liberal newspapers and colunnists, they call him “arrogant’. Perhaps that's why these pages are in constant attack mode against the President.

He is a free-trader. Though some may rightly argue that excessive free trade is lessening our capacity to be self sufficient, until otherwise decided, free trade has been a hallmark of conservative economic theory. Most multinational executives opposed to large deficits usually find the answer to deficits in raising taxes. They may be Republicans but are not Conservatives in any other area and, in fact, do not subscribe to answering lower taxes with deep cuts in "entitlement" spending.

I sometimes think our dedicated people out there fighting for our beliefs judge the President by criteria more suitable for assessing the executive director of a conservative PAC. The President is not the head of a Church, nor the director of the Council of All Virtuous Beliefs, nor the head of the Heritage Foundation. Nor is he a conservative columnist or editor at National Review.

In defining the religious movement to which a person belongs, we in the religion sphere have a few criteria. One: a belief in the cardinal principles of that movement. Two: worship at one of its institutions. Three: public identification with the movement. Four: an exhibition thru action and heart that the individual lives by and feels these principles.

Most of us understand that every movement and theory has minutiae that some raise to levels beyond their worthwhile significance. Often, the little things are used as a test as to one's authenticity, raising the minutiae to a level above the core principles. And so it is with so many other ideologies. In every important and time-tested rule, George Bush is a true and proud Conservative. Besides, unlike Clinton and Kerry, for example, there is no question that culturally he is 100% American, not European. That's one of the reasons today's liberals so dislike him.

He could please us more, perhaps, if he had greater support among our own Republican representatives. How many times is he supposed to re-fight the ANWAR battle to prove to us he believes in oil/energy independence?

Philosophers can be absolutists. Keeping in mind the vagaries of politics, it is impossible for a President to be an absolutist. Sure, I'd like the President to stop calling Islam "a religion of peace." But we know why he says it. Sure, I'd like him to end this war tomorrow by using every ounce of American military power, by fighting the war on our terms. But he probably can't.

It may well turn out that cultures dominated by Arabic/ Islamic thinking and habits can not be democratized. If so, the President's vision and hope will have been faulty, a mistake, but it says nothing of his conservatism.

Sure, I'd like him to close the borders tomorrow, ironclad -- and send every illegal back before they bankrupt our hospitals, clinics, and schools; yes, before crime and certain neighborhoods get out of control. I bet you, he wants the same.

In principle, I'm against a massive prescription drug program. But it was to be. Better ours than theirs. Though I believe we can persuade and indeed convince most people about most issues, it may be impossible to disregard a governmental role and answer to the issue of rising medical costs, particularly drug costs, especially when it comes to the elderly, our parents. So give the President some slack.

I understand why the President followed all those in the party begging for some type of program for seniors in need of help in paying for their life-enhancing medications. It helped win the 2004 contest for House and Senate members by taking the issue away from the Democrats. When it comes to governance, politics is still important.

During Reagan's two terms, conservatives would implore those surrounding Reagan to "let Reagan be Reagan." The feeling was that Reagan was at times not acting conservatively because his inner circle was shielding him from important facts or obstructing him from acting the way he truly would have wanted. We now know that Reagan was always Reagan. Even the most conservative President knows the limitations to total implementation of any philosophy, no matter how correct and noble. The presidency is no different than any other category of life where reality reigns among even the most philosophically strong.

Though his polls are at what they call "a low point," the President has not made any attempt to refashion long-held principles in an effort to regain popularity and create a rise in his numbers. I am astounded and heart-warmed by this man's ability to stay the course during this time of war and to choose principle over popularity. I respect him for that.

To me -- a Conservative first and Republican second -- it is beyond doubt that George Bush, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Donald Rumsfeld, Andrew Card and even Condi Rice constitute the most conservative administration -- and vocally so -- we have ever seen, and one stronger and more resolute than even that of Ronald Reagan. It remains Conservative even in its second term.

We do not realize this because, unlike Reagan, Bush has not been blessed with the central-casting characteristics of Reagan. Reagan was endowed with certain physical mannerisms that gave him a larger than life aura. He was very self-confident. He was also a man of not one but two generations previous. Men born a century ago had a certain bearing and unequivocation, an assuredness; more so than those of us today under 60 raised in an era of ambiguity and liberal political correctness.

But when it comes to inner steel, I think Bush has ingot loads, as well as a heart with firm muscle. He is a terrific sheriff. That's why I have my synagogue make a special blessing for him, every Sabbath at 12 pm -- at High Noon.

Rabbi Spero is a radio talk show host, a pulpit rabbi, and president of Caucus for America. He can be reached at www.caucusforamerica.com.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=13452