Replies

>>>>You may be right and I really don't feel like arguing about this because frankly, I don't care because it really doesn't' matter.

You make a false statement about Reagan, based on information that never existed and now you say you don't really care. LOL Next time I'll know not to go through the trouble of posting the facts to you, cause you don't care.

Btw, some of the posts I've seen from Dr.Deb has used polling data that is bogus. All she wants to do is tear down Reagan, to make Dubya look better. No matter what anyone says, as with all President's, history will be the final judge and have the last word on Bush. His success is America's success. So hoping Bush makes a big comeback is in the best interests of every American.

Historic fact: Bush is no Reagan and never will be.

I'm sorry, I wasn't clear.

I was not intending to make a false statement, I made a MISTAKE. For that I apologize. My faulty memory recalled a 29% approval rating somewhere for President Reagan but after looking, I'm not finding it, so I was wrong.

My intention was not to tear him down (He is one of our heroes and we named our daughter after him fwiw), but to simply make the point that polls do not necessarily reflect how well a job a President is actually doing, they are an indicator of how people THINK he is doing. That can be skewed by many factors including a hysterically hostile press. Communication with the public is this President's weakest point, which is different than his job performance.

I think of it this way...If the great communicator, get good things done Reagan can drop to, what 35%, during his administration, then it is still ok that communicationally-handicapped Bush can drop to 33% during his. They are different men, in different times, with different challenges.

It comes down to this...I don't really care about President Bush's polls (not that I don't care that I made a false representation, I do care about that) because they are what they are, that was then, this is now. Harping incessantly about them, worrying and fretting or even celebrating makes no difference. Polls just are not substantive when it comes to results in the present.

I agree that Bush is no Reagan. But who wants to be a pale imitation of another great man? Time will tell, but there could be a point where "he's kind of another Bush" could be considered a compliment in the same way that people compare Reagan and Bush sometimes. Or it may not. Arguing about that now makes no sense. In the end, they are both men with strengths and weaknesses who made decisions to the best of their abilities. What that means for us, time will tell.

It would be fascinating to have seen what hysterical arguing we all would have been having over Reagan, had the New Media been available then. I guarantee there would have been something (Sandra Day O 'Connor or possibly even borders!) and we would have been blinded to his successes in the heat of the moment.

Thanks for your comment. I was in no way trying to disparage your man Reagan. After all, he is my man too.