Posted on 06/05/2010 11:17:22 PM PDT by jeltz25
bookmark
Never mind, I see it now. You said 5 seconds into the clip. Guess I wasn’t reading carefully. LOL
I don't know the date of the picture, but I would guess January 1981 before Reagan's inauguration.
That same speech could be given in 2012 and be just as relevant.
George Bush I called Reagan’s soon-to-be successful supply-side economics “Voodoo Economics,” and publcly ridiculed it when he was running against him.
Then the Bushes proceeded to destroy the Republican Party as Reagan had built it up.
Stay out da Bushes. Jeb can stick it.
Now just what do you think is REALLY on Jimmies mind????
Thank you for posting this youtube link. It made my day.
For those who criticize Bushes Vis-a-vis Reagan, please remember federal spending nearly tripled during Reagan’s 2 terms. But in his defense, he had majority democrat congress to put up with. The common thread with all 3 of them is that they all kept us safe.
The current person occupying WH is a disgrace in comparison to all 3 of those republicans.
No president or Republican or conservative is perfect, or completely vile, either. These people aren't gods, just men, doing what they can. Each failed in some ways, each succeeded in some, but there's a difference between all three and Carter and Obama. Those two see this country not as a great creation which needed a little fixing here and there, they see it as a horrible thing that somehow managed to get one or two things right, and their job as destroying it from within so it can be rebuilt according to a leftist blueprint that has failed every time it's been attempted.
The Bushes may not have been up to Reagan's level, nor was Reagan perfect, but they were so far ahead of the other two in terms of capability and love for country that it's not funny. Three were trying to steer the ship of state through troubled waters, the other two were trying to permanently ground it so they could start building a whole new vessel.
The difference was that Reagan was opposed to massive spending, while the Bushes, particularly GWB, was for spending, and spent like a drunken Democrat.
Again, they tore down the party Reagan had built up, and we are deeply suffering because of that.
While I am grateful they kept us safe, and they are far better than Obozo, we should never be content to settle for their “democrat-lite” approach again.
And any giddy anticipation of a Jeb Bush presidency is ludicrous in my opinion.
The problem is, R Reagan, GHW Bush, and GW Bush all had to get funding for defense items the country needed. All compromised, getting what the country needed, at the cost of other spending that the country didn’t need.
It is built into our system of government.
In the first 15 seconds
Like the picture, but Calvin Coolidge should definitely be there instead of W.
Actually I’d prefer it if it was just Reagan, Lincoln, and Coolidge.
Yes, but “we have it in our power to begin the world over again”. - R.R. (and we do!)
Well..I am to the right of ALL of them...but it is so curious that people ignore the FACT that federal spending TRIPLED during Reagan’s 8 years, in spite of him always talking about smaller government. I am not so sure federal spending tripled during Dubya’s 8 years. Even if did, it is no worse than Reagan’s record.
Also no one should overlook the fact that Dubya had to deal with 911. Reagan had no such calamity to deal with.
But I will take another Reagan in a NY minute. All I am trying to do is keep things in perspective...and look at their actual records.
Reagan had called the 3 previous Presidents to the White House to attend Anwar Sadat’s funeral. I think after the funeral, Nixon went on the Saudi Arabia to talk to King Khalid.
I'll cut him some slack...my perception at the time was that W's 1st Priority was supporting the troops in Iraq. Things weren't going well and the Democrats, in order to weaken Bush, were undermining the troops and encouraging the enemy (Yes, the Dems were indirectly responsible for the deaths of many American military). My perception was that everything else W did with Congress revolved around maintaining sufficient Congressional and public support to carry out "the mission". [I quote "the mission" because I recall W's Dad, during his Presidency, speaking of how WWII taught him to focus on "the mission".] I think that's what W did; and to the extent it hurt him personally...he accepted that...because it was all about "the mission" and the troops.
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.