Replies

How did you get the idea that I believe the country was pining for a conservative in 2000? Nah, nobody wanted to return to the Reagan days after Clinton did they. Come on, fess up.

It wasn’t, Bush was as conservative as could have been elected and, as you note, barely was. That's actually rather funny. Your premise is that the nation would not have wanted to return to the Reagan years, vs the Clinton years and the lying scumbag's hand picked insider.

And the truth is had the RATS thrown out the lying weasel Clinton and run Gore as an incumbent Bush would have lost the election. Okay I get it. It's your premise that the Unibomber candidate couldn't be beaten by a more Conservative man than Bush. We'll have to agree to disagree there.

After 911 just about everything Bush did was to increase his abilities to fight the wars which we had to fight. After 09/11, the Democrat party would have been completely destroyed if it had tried to stand up to Bush and thwart the war effort in mass. Later on they became more bold, but the war effort wasn't going to be abandoned, and the public supported it.

He tried to bribe his domestic enemies. Okay, then it seems your premise is that Bush doubled the budget of the Department of Education in his first term, only to keep support for the war effort. When he passed Medicare Part D, it was another attempt to buy Leftist support for the war. Nice try, but I'm not buying this in any way shape or form. Either. When McCain/Kennedy introduced the border resolution bill, it was the fulfillment of Bush's dreams concerning the matter. Did Bush do this too, to gain Democrats support for the war? Look, who controled the House and the Senate in those days? Bush didn't need any Democrat support at all.

My only major criticism of Bush is he did not fight the RAT media and allowed himself to be attacked unjustly by it. This poisoned the peoples’ minds which is easy enough to do. I'm going to agree with you here. I will take it futher, which probably won't surprise you, but I wish he had been a better advocate for sound Conservative principles in public. The guy not only didn't defend himself, he did a miserable job of defending his policies and Conservatism in general.

And “no” the so called announcement of a war chest did not stop anyone from running. It did announce that he would be a formidable force who had done his preparation to run a winning campaign. Thanks for confirming what I stated.

Just as Perry made sure he had the financial backing to run a real campaign rather than a slapdash, ad hoc one. That still doesn't make the guy a sound candiate to represent Conservatism.

You are going to compare RR’s political history with Bachmann or Cain? Seriously? Where did I miss a lifetime in politics for either? Was either the president of a major union? Was either a two term governor of the most populous state in the Union? Or a former candidate? Only in the parallel universe not this one. In 2008 we ran a guy with no executive experience. Then it was okay because he had a near 30 year history in the U.S. Senate. Nevermind that he had one of the worst records I've ever seen for a man trying to take the leadership of our party. Here is part of his record: http://www.hotr.us/mccain/mccainagain.html Now we get another person with no executive experience, only they have stellar Conservative credentials, and all of a sudden executive experience matters. LOL

Cain (or anyone with political ambitions) might receive some consideration if he wins a political office somewhere. Unless that happens he goes nowhere. Michelle must win a statewide office to get much consideration. These seem to be the rules which must be followed to become president. Unless either decides to become a victorious general. McCain?

Another thing about Reagan is that he was a welcome presence in American homes for more than three decades as the host of popular tv shows. We grew up with Reagan as a familiar and kindly grandfather figure hardly a threat nor a political figure at all. Nice try, but going into the fall of 1999, Reagan's negatives were larger than his favorables. What you said is true, but it accounted for nothing in the oveall scheme of things.

This made it impossible for the RATmedia to easily demonize him and was why he was called the “Teflon” President since the slime did not stick. There is NO similar politician in our history. Without that mastery of the media and ability to thwart it Reagan probably would never have been elected. It would have Goldwatered him. Actually, Clinton deflected ten times the grime that Reagan had to. It was of his own devising, but the guy pulled it off. Dole ran one of the worst campaigns in U.S. history, but Clinton did pull it off.

Reagan wasn't called the Teflon President until deep into his first term, if not later.

All your remarks fall when faced with the simple fact that there was NO more conservative governor in the nation than W. None, zero, nada. Americans barely elected him after he had been painted as the reincarnation of Genghis Khan.

No, Americans would not have wanted to return to the Reagan years WITHOUT Reagan. We had NO Reagan. Bush was as close as we could get. There was NO alternative.

Where is this “more conservative” than Bush phantom you keep bringing up? He didn’t exist.

Yes, I hate to shock you with the idea of political deals but they happen. I know living in Illinois we are just used to having RAT deals shoved down our throats but they do exist.

Bush mouthed all the conservative principles you could hope for but his style had never been as a strident advocate. He took the most important aspect of the presidency - protecting this nation from its enemies - as seriously as any president. For this I will always appreciate him.