jimmydanger wrote:Craig, you mention Ronald Reagan as being a great president, but his son declares her a nitwit.
You mean his son "Ron"?
But his other son Michael Reagan, had this to say...
"I strongly disagree with my brother, Ron Reagan's assertions that our father, Pres. Ronald W. Reagan, would not support the Tea Party Movement in this country and Sarah Palin's activism, if he were alive today.
"Pres. Reagan championed freedom throughout the world. He believed in the power of the people. His fundamental core beliefs about individual freedoms and liberties, and against government intrusion into the lives of citizens, were foremost on his agenda.
"I believe he would embrace the Tea Party Movement, if he were alive today, and support the work of Sarah Palin, Scott Brown and others who espouse conservative principles, who are opening up the eyes of the public to what is happening to our nation.
"In 1976 and 1980, and throughout his presidency, Pres. Reagan worked tirelessly to build the conservative movement and the Republican Party through the grassroots. He knew what it took to build a movement.
"Unlike my brother, I campaigned with and for my father in 1976 and in 1980 – and I feel more qualified to say what he would and would not have supported. He would be applauding the grassroots organization of this country and Sarah Palin for making herself available to elect conservative candidates. I've always liked Michael better. He was adopted, but he was the real son of Ronald Reagan in heart and spirit, and VALUES!
jimmydanger wrote:You also neglected to mention Bill Clinton; we have not known and will not know times as great as we had under his presidency for many years. My house doubled in value, my income increased by a factor of at least five and my 401K swelled to nearly 100K during the 90's.
Conservatives have some legitimate issues with President Clinton, national security among them.
But I think he governed very close to the middle for the most part. Although, giving him complete credit for the economy is not merited. The President has much less to do with the economy, than the Congress who holds the purse strings and writes the bills. And that Congress was Republican. Still, Clinton signed them.
I'll agree with you, that he was a pretty good President for the most part.
But I never said that you could not be SMART and still be a good leader. Just that leadership is derived from other values and skills, more than raw intelligence.
jimmydanger wrote:All of that ended when Bush took over. Must have slipped your mind.
That's not accurate. The economy grew about 19% during the 8 years of the GWB administration. It outpaced most other industrial countries during that time period. Things went south in the last year or two of his presidency, but much of that was due to the economic strains of fighting two simultaneous wars. He had an enormous challenge facing him, and the nation, in the events of 9/11, which occurred only 3 months into his presidency!
We can't know whether Bush would have turned it around, if his Presidency was another few years longer. You can blame him anyway, since he pushed us into the wars, and that is fair. But then it has to be determined whether what he did (seeking to give us a foothold in the Middle East and begin a democracy that could spread) was the right thing to do or not. You won't believe that it was. But I do believe that it was the right thing to do. We all watched his father withdraw us from Iraq the first go around, and he LIED to the Kurds about American support for their revolts. Just like JFK LIED to the rebels trying to overthrow Castro with the Bay of Pigs fiasco.
BOTH MEN "Bush Sr." and "JFK" brought SHAME to our country, and our position as SUPPORTERS of freedom and democracy.
I loathe BOTH of them for this aspect of their Presidencies!
jimmydanger wrote:The Republican party has written her off as a liability and too far right. Which party will nominate her? Oh yeah the Tea Party lol.
She is loved by a strong representation of Conservatives. The good ole boys, holding the longest tenure may have a problem with her, but not because she is too conservative. She represents mainstream America, and not the afternoon scone eating elite, who went to ivy league schools, and like their cushy power that comes from having a near life-time membership in the Senate! She brought ethics charges against members of her own party in Alaska, and they didn't like it. I imagine some of those old stalwarts that hate Palin from the Republican ranks, could be worried that the house she wants to clean... is their own! After all, she proved that she would vote AGAINST Republicans, if they strayed from the basic ideals of the Republican Party.
They are just as afraid of her, as the liberals are!
I LOVE IT!
jimmydanger wrote:Since you have a close personal relationship with God please tell Him I think He's slacking off, we need a miracle or two down here.
We are the ones slacking off. We are the ones comfortable in our own selfish pursuits, with little concern for those who really need some help.
God NEVER slacks off.
He cares about every one of us.
He would like nothing more, than for POLITICS and RELIGION and all the rest of it, to begin to accept that we are all a FAMILY, and that humanity MUST solve it's problems and face the challenges of the future, as ONE PEOPLE. He desires that LOVE rule our hearts, rather than selfishness, politics, or even.... RELIGION!