[Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears]

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.

[Undocumented_capitalist]

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.

[LZ_Bayonet]

"... GWB, was for spending, and spent like a drunken Democrat."

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.

[SevenMinusOne]

Get out of here with your free passes for Reagan but not for GWB. Was Reagan "opposed" as you say to nominating (for only PC reasons) the terrible "women" SDO to SCOUTS (who helped damage law in this Nation for decades to come). Was Reagan "opposed" to flipping on FICA and the need for privatizing Soc Sec only to turn and raise FICA taxes on all Americans, thus burdening an entire other generation to the largest wealth stealing scheme ever to come out of Washington (doing this mind you, at a time, when Soc Sec was at a much more manageable level and moving toward a quasi co-public/private system would have been a much easier process).

Was Reagan opposed to blanket "real" amnesty or again, did he just push that issue down the line further burdening future generations with that problem and setting a precedent for "blanket" amnesty (which was NOT part of GWB immigration plan, there were dozens of more requirements and penalties under GWB plan than Reagan's pure amnesty)...and again, when Reagan was looking at this issue it was at a much more manageable level than in the past several years.

Was Reagan opposed to "cutting and running" after putting our brave warriors in harms way in Beirut, only to see them brutally attacked and murdered by "Islamic terrorists"....GWB took the fight to these terrorists no matter where they were and no matter the heat or public polls from those abroad or here at home.

Now, this list could go on and on....But it is needless. Don't give me Reagan had a DEM controlled Congress, blah, blah.....Reality is a great majority of those "Ds" back then were "Southern Ds" who today would be even better than the "Rhinos" GWB had to work with in his majority "R" House and Senate we held for a few years... That's a reality most don't want to recognize when understanding the workings of Congress...

Another reality is both men, to me, were damn fine leaders. They dealt with issues and made tough decisions the best they could under the circumstances they found themselves. Both men were strong on defense, both men cut taxes (though Reagan turned around and raised them! GWB never did!) both men dearly loved this Nation and believed in its people.... But I'm sick to death of those running down GWB while giving foolish and silly passes to Reagan at every turn.