Reagan’s Third Term Has Arrived

National Review Online ^ | January 29, 2003 | Stephen Moore

[livesbygrace]

Oh yeah!

[Huck]

Well, Reagan wasn't able to curb spending either. Bush is trying to set a limit at 4%, and is meeting great resistence.

[Petronski]

...the New York Times pouted that...

I like it. From now on, for me it will be the 'NYT pouted this' and the 'NYT pouted that.'

[Eric in the Ozarks]

The Gipper spent billions but also whipped the Rooskies without firing a shot or drafting a single son.

[ilgipper]

Good points, although I think the point has to be made again that just about each of those spending proposals (although I detest the extra sepnding) is going to causes that the left champion and stealing the issues from the dems. Environment, AIDS, etc are all the issues that Democrats would potentially use against him...except here comes Bush again on the big stage talking about their issues.

[Moonman62]

Well, Reagan wasn't able to curb spending either. Bush is trying to set a limit at 4%, and is meeting great resistence.

Reagan didn't have both houses of Congress on his side, plus as Stephen Moore notes, there is a difference in rhetoric. Oh, and Reagan used the veto.

[ReleaseTheHounds]

Interesting to see the varying reactions... Glee from conservatives like Stephen Moore and condemnation from Dems. I just saw a Clinton advisor (on CNBC) name William Galston (don't know what his specialty was... maybe responsible for unclogging drainpipes in the Oval Office) who was just disdainful of Bush.

Typical of a Clintonoid, this guy complains that "the people want Bush to focus on the domestic agenda and slow-down the war on Iraq, and Bush does just the opposite!" Leadership, according to the Clintonoids, is taking a poll and turning the results into instant public policy.

Thank goodness these people have been returned to the hinterland of academia where they the damage they do is limited.

[Moonman62]

Oh yeah!

Read the entire article. The middle and last paragraphs are a bit contradictory to the title and first paragraph. Stephen Moore started writing articles like this about a month ago. He's getting pressure from somewhere to be positive. Bush isn't even close to being Reagan.

[Tribune7]

I too cringed when Bush touted out his multimillion-dollar cockamamie proposal for hydrogen-fueled cars.

If ti works, great. If it doesn't -- which I expect -- it pre-empts the Dems enviro-weenies. Don't ever play poker with W.

[Tribune7]

Great point.

[Chemist_Geek]

From now on, for me it will be the 'NYT pouted this' and the 'NYT pouted that.'

Sometimes they sulk and snit, too. "Women and children hardest hit."

[Timocrat]

I too cringed when Bush touted out his multimillion-dollar cockamamie proposal for hydrogen-fueled cars

With W you gotta learn to connect the dots. If we are going to war with Iraq so W can help his friends in the Awhl Bidness why is he spending over a billion dollars on finding a substitute for oil? Makes the "No blood for oil" protesters look silly.

[Huck]

Reagan didn't have both houses of Congress on his side

I don't think you can say President Bush has the Senate "on his side."

[Huck]

Don't ever play poker with W.

That's kinda how I look at it. I think he plays his hand pretty well. Just look how he's playing his Colin Powell card. Brilliantly. And the press is too dumb to get it.

[nowings]

Let's start with this, I love W, but he's no Reagan...He makes me a little nervous with the hydrogen car, aids relief etc. If he really believes in this stuff that's one thing, but if he's just pandering I'll be disappointed that he's not going with his gut.

[hang 'em]

I think "hydrogen-fueled cars" and "AIDS in Africa" is this years equivalent of last years "women of cover" and "hijacked a religion of peace" rhetoric. As they say, don't ever play poker with W. Many a RAT did and many a RAT got cleaned out.

[finnman69]

Actually the NY Times said

"We seem not only to be witnessing the third term of the Reagan presidency; at this rate we may well see the fourth.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

Don't ever play poker with W.

The "idiot" would be devastating to his opponents in a game of Texas hold 'em.

[Wphile]

I'll be curious to see how that 4% works out in detail. He said discretionary spending at 4%. That includes all the departments, including defense. It may end up being like last year's budget wherein defense got a much larger increase than the cap proposed and the other departments got less than the 4%. The devil's in the details. We shall see.

[First_Salute]

I predicted this, this ...