I love that statement. It's supposed to be the conservative coup d'etat in a discussion of the merits of Bush II and his presidencey.
One should quietly agree, and forfeit the match.
I revere Ronald Reagan, I believe his face should be set into stone on Rushmore.
But we forget a lot sometimes.
Ronaldus Maximus knocked down the Berlin Wall, and then brought down the Iron Curtain on an Evil Empire.
He made us feel good about ourselves for the first time in quite a while.
And he quietly "forgot" campaign promises such as the abolishment of the Department of Education, and the Department of Energy somewhere along the way.
As far as bargaining with the Democrats on his terms, Ronald Reagan had landslide elections, that's a mandate, it gave him firm ground to stand on. But a contested election and a Democratic Senate do not. Let's nt mention 9/11 and the economy.
Even at that, Reagan obtained congressional funding for anti-communist guerillas around the world by trading away control of the domestic agenda.
The criticism of Reagan was every bit as intense then, as the one towards Bush is today.
"There is only one problem with that Luis, George W. Bush is no Ronald Reagan."
Playing for the Miami Dolphins must suck.
If you're a quaterback, you will never be Marino, and regardless of how many Superbowls you win, you will never be the '72 team.
If you're going to compare Bush to Reagan, then level the playing field.
Remember the history, not the hype.