reagan - overrated?

Read the Murray Rothbard article I linked to.

Great Article. The info on the "tax cuts" and spending was fairly interesting. He doubled the debt and didn't really cut taxes. Thats the definition of a true conservative.
 
I liked Reagan, I even listened to his diaries. he was good man, he had latched into some core libertarian concepts, understood the danger of Socialism, but was less enlightened than say Ron Paul. He wanted to reduce spending, get rid of big government, but was a fanatic against the threat of communism.

So in order to get the funding he needed he had to compromise wioth Democrats. I think had Reagan been given a Republican congress the government would have shrunk. But I do think military spending was Reagan's achilies heel. That and the belief that it was America's job to spread Democracy and Freedom. The federal government is only charged with preserving freedom at home, not abroad.
 
I think the thing with Reagan is he is not so much over-rated as a mythos has grown up around his legacy just like the Camelot myth that surrounded JFK in Democrats minds.

He was far from perfect and I think far inferior to what Ron Paul would try to accomplish. However, Reagan managed to live thru two terms and I doubt Ron Paul would - and I am not talking about age either.

I think Reagan must have done pretty well - if not at turning the country around at least he held those who wanted to destroy it largely at bay. The fact that the left has been trying to demonize him after his terms expired and even after he did makes me feel like he was probably a better champion of liberty than hardcore libertarians will ever give him credit for.

For all that, he definitely blew it on a few things. I really wonder how much of Iran-Contra he was aware of and how much of it was done under his nose by Bush 1 and Ollie North. It waws certainly clear that he didn't know about the "Contra" aspect of Iran Contra. Bush 1 issued presidential pardons to all invoilved on Christmas Eve 1992 and had everyone's record expunged.

I think Reagan was almost certainly the most honest president of my lifetime and tried to do the right thing for the country - something we haven't seen much of since.
 
Not entirely his fault government expanded. He was very busy with the veto pen, but sometimes the Democrats over-rode his vetos.

He vetoed more than 70 bills.

Here's a laundry list for Ronnie.

Originally a Democrat New Dealer that admitted the fault in that thinking.

Oil prices dropped from RRs call for more domestic production, $36 per barrel down to $18 and then only $22 at the end of his terms.

Inflation went from 12.5% under Carter to 4.4% under RR.

16 million + jobs.

GDP growth annual rate was 3.4%.

Tax cuts on personal income of 25%.

525 Electoral College Votes, (record number) for second term.

Approval rate at end of two terms was 64%.

Had Bush as his second to counter the Soviets as Bush was the director of CIA and had insight into fighting the Cold War.

Dealt with Gorbachev and defeated the communism of that era.

Anyone else have numbers like that? I know FDR didn't and Ike had four mini recessions during his terms.

But there are criticisms to be made for spending, much of it was from the Democrats that had enough votes to do what they wanted, so like drunken sailors they spent the massive amounts of revenue that came into the coffers from the tax cuts and job creation. Milton Friedman's frustration with RR was the inability to control spending. RR also went along with certain bills that contained military spending in an effort to defeat communism, which he deemed immoral.
 
I think the thing with Reagan is he is not so much over-rated as a mythos has grown up around his legacy just like the Camelot myth that surrounded JFK in Democrats minds.

I agreed with you up until here.

he was probably a better champion of liberty than hardcore libertarians will ever give him credit for.

What? Perhaps the neocons and some in the media have led you to believe this? This is the same guy that formed alliances with the left wing organizations like NOW for his own gain and resulted in policy that entrenched government into our personal lives.

Here is a good article: Ronald Reagan's Mistake
http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive.../gay061304.htm

Welfare reform of the Reagan era, no matter how well-intentioned, was such an error. It is one that I cannot reconcile with conservative or any genuine American values. Under Reagan, the reach of the welfare program expanded beyond its means-tested boundaries to include families without regard to economic status and was transformed from a helping hand to a corrupt, over-controlling police organization that exercises unchecked power that far exceeds that of the IRS.

Under the weight of the huge expanded program and its billions in additional annual funding, the system of checks and balances has collapsed and basic human rights have been eliminated. Millions of ordinary people have been labeled social criminals and a significant number of them have been jailed for not living up to arbitrary standards and for not reaching sometimes unobtainable goals. In at least one case, a man was beaten to death by guards while imprisoned, not because he posed a mortal threat, but because of what the program's propaganda machine had labeled him – a "deadbeat dad." Brian Armstrong of Milford, New Hampshire lost his job. He was jailed without trial in January 2000 for missing a hearing. One week later he was dead.

It is no wonder why Ron Paul had it with Reagan and switched temporarily to the Libertarian party.
 
Last edited:

  • *good leadership skills
    *probably really cared
    *did nothing of what he promised to do. Government actually expanded under his Presidency
    *accepted a skull & bones neocon as his VP

overrated? I don't doubt that he was a nice guy, I just don't really know what the big thing with Reagan is? He threatened the Soviets....and? Socialism doesn't work, the free marketeers (including Ron Paul) knew this back in the peak of the Cold War. Of course, true free marketeers have always been ignored throughout the 20th century. Ludwig Von Mises, Murray Rothbard
It all depends from what perspective you look at American politics. Reagan led the modern Conservative Movement into political supremacy which lasted until the 2008 elections. It remains to be seen whether it makes any kind of a come back in 2010 and 2012.

From a libertarian perspective - our perspective - he is over rated.
 
If you think what reagan did was "great", then you are clearly not a libertarian/rp supporter.



When you consider what he had to deal with , it was great.

I realize how some of you have no clue how the government really works, but the president is not a supreme dictator . He doesn't have the power to just snap his fingers and inact every change he wants. ( not even Obama with his fillibuster proof majorites has been able to do that ....yet).

Reagan did his best to protect individual rights , lower taxes, and get government out of our way. There was only so much he could do with the Democrats blocking everything, and the Soviet Union breathing down his neck.

His most valuable contribution though, was that he was able to articulate and communicate OUR ideals better than anyone else on our side has EVER been able too. Ron Paul's biggest weakness is that will never be able to match Reagan's ability to connect with people .
 
Last edited:
Reagan did his best to protect individual rights , lower taxes, and get government out of our way.

I would add foreign policy but it still escapes me how anyone could say Reagan "did his best to protect individual rights". How? This is a myth since as I posted above one example of how Reagan expanded the welfare police state and intruded on personal liberties. I swear I think when people hear welfare or welfare reform they think it only effects poor people when the reality is it effects the privacy and individual rights of ALL working Americans.
 
Last edited:
.
.
I had to look deep into my computer for this one. I think you will find it interesting.
Check near bottom of this for CFR influence on Bush for VP.

This article comes from
Tom Flocco.com
http://tomflocco.com/




HINCKLEY AND BUSH FAMILIES WERE CLOSE FRIENDS
December 22, 2003



HINCKLEY AND BUSH FAMILIES WERE CLOSE FRIENDS

by Connie Cook Smith
(printed with permission)
http://www.conniescomments.blogspot.com

Everyone knows who John Hinckley, Jr. is. This youngest Hinckley son is now being permitted unsupervised visits within the Washington, DC metropolitan area--away from his mental facility, after nearly killing President Reagan in 1981. But a much more interesting subject is, who is John Hinckley, Sr.?

In 1980, Hinckley Sr. was a Texas oilman who, the records show, strove mightily to get fellow Texas oilman George H.W. Bush the Republican nomination for president. The Bushes and the Hinckleys were frequent dinner companions.

But far beyond their social connection, neither Bush nor Hinckley wanted Ronald Reagan to become president, because Reagan was opposed to tax breaks for the oil industry to which Bush, Hinckley and other Texans were highly dependent.

The effort to make Bush Sr. president in 1980 failed; but he and his friend and backer Hinckley Sr. got the next best thing – the "heartbeat away from the presidency" office of Vice-President of the United States.

A couple months later, Hinckley Jr. shot Reagan, and Bush Sr. very nearly did become president at that time, after all. Curiously, only one time was it announced on the news about the connections between the Bush and Hinckley families: An almost bewildered John Chancellor on NBC Nightly News reported "the bizarre coincidence" that Vice President Bush's son, Neil, and Scott Hinckley had dinner plans for March 31, 1981 -- now cancelled, of course. [But even Chancellor failed to mention the close friendship between the the assassin's father and Vice President Bush--let alone the rest of the corporate media.]

Reports indicate that the Bush family strove mightily to keep this information from the American people. And some reports list this incredible "coincidence" -- directly linked to the assassination attempt of President Reagan -- as one of the most spiked stories of the last century.

In other words, the brother of the shooter and the son of the vice-president (and their wives) had a dinner date for the day after the shooting. But it really wasn’t such "a bizarre coincidence." Those two families were very close; but the press never focused on that critical fact as it should have. If Reagan had died, the oilmen’s interests would have been served.

Some people think that Hinckley Jr. was mind-controlled, CIA-style, to shoot Reagan. George Bush Sr. was head of the CIA a few years before. Others think that young Hinckley wanted to please his dad and get Bush, his dad’s candidate and close friend, into the presidency for him after all.

Interestingly, legal experts note that the crime occurred in Washington, D.C., the only venue in the United States at that time which recognized an insanity defense. If the kid committed the crime in D.C., he would never serve hard time? Well, coincidentally, that's where he committed it.

A very good read on the Hinckley-Bush connections is a book that came out about 20 years ago, entitled, "The Afternoon of March 30." It was published as a novel in order to protect the author. This book is now more relevant than ever, and it can be obtained at:
http://www.nathanielblumberg.com/bush.htm.

But there’s another coincidence to mention. In January of 1963, President John F. Kennedy announced his plan to cut the tax breaks for the oil industry. Oilmen H.L. Hunt, George H.W. Bush (head of Zapata Petroleum), and others were no doubt enraged. What a curious twist of fate that Kennedy was shot in Texas later that same year.

In the 1990's, LBJ’s now-undisputed mistress Madeleine Brown announced that LBJ told her that Kennedy was murdered "by the oil people, and aspects of the CIA."

And gosh, one more coincidence – we now have another Bush, the oilman’s son, becoming U.S. President in a very quirky election. And many individuals believe he gave the American people completely phony reasons for invading Iraq-- one of the most oil-rich nations in the Middle East.

Hmm....

[ Sidebar: Many other significant facts concerning the Bush and Hinckley families have remained unexplored and unexplained, in addition to other matters related to the assassination attempt detailed in Blumberg's book which is found at:
http://www.nathanielblumberg.com/bush.htm :

1. Neil Bush, a landman for Amoco Oil, told Denver reporters he had met Scott Hinckley at a surprise party at the Bush home January 23, 1981 [Nine weeks before Hinckley's brother John Jr. attempted to assassinate President Reagan--which would have elevated Bush Sr. to the presidency], and approximately three weeks after the U.S. Department of Energy had begun what was termed a "routine audit" of the books of the Vanderbilt Energy Corporation, the Hinckley oil company. In an incredible coincidence, on the morning of March 30 [the day of the Reagan assassination attempt by John Hinckley, Jr.], three representatives of the U.S. Department of Energy told Scott Hinckley, John Hinckley Jr.'s older brother and Vanderbilt's vice president of operations, that auditors had uncovered evidence of pricing violations on crude oil sold by the company from 1977 through 1980. The auditors announced that the federal government was considering a penalty of two million dollars. [This, on the same day that his brother John--the youngest son of Vice President Bush's close friend--attempted the assassination!] Scott Hinckley reportedly requested "several hours to come up with an explanation" of the serious overcharges. The meeting ended a little more than an hour before John Hinckly Jr. shot President Reagan.

2. Excerpts from an interview by Theresa Walla, United Press International, March 9, 1985: Journalism professor Nathaniel Blumberg was so disturbed about the investigation into the attempted assassination of President Reagan that he turned his suspicions into a 377-page novel.

In The Afternoon of March 30 , Blumberg blends fact and fiction in looking at the unreported "connections" between Hinckley's family and that of Vice President George Bush, the man who came within a heartbeat of the presidency of the United States.

"What I'm really after is the case to be officially reopened," said the Rhodes scholar and former dean of the University of Montana journalism school. "If they can answer all the questions satisfactorily, I'll be delighted," he said in an interview. "In truth, I don't think all the questions can be answered without opening up a whole new can of worms."

Blumberg's unease is now focused on the indifference shown to what he calls "the story behind the story." Bush, he said, has questions to answer in connection with the attempt. So do the FBI and the judge who presided over Hinckley's trial, according to Blumberg.

"I'm not saying there was a conspiracy to assassinate Reagan," Blumberg emphasized. "I'm saying there was a conspiracy to keep significant information from the public that it has a right to know."

Blumberg asks his readers to consider his contentions that journalists were fed a barely believable story full of inconsistencies. A long-time media critic, he decided the example warranted more than a critique of press performance in a crisis. Such efforts, he said, usually "go out there and die." Instead, he chose to weave his questions into a novel so it would reach a broader audience and allow him to probe problems in society and corruption in government, as well as maladies of the U.S. press.

His book chronicles the adventures of a fictitious Montana newsman who follows the information trail deserted by the national media. His documentation is put in the form of an article the fictitious hero is writing. Blumberg published the book on his own Wood FIRE Ashes Press to retain total control over the quality.

"Have you ever heard an author say what a great job his publisher did with a book?" he asks. But, without a commercial advertising campaign, he's had to market the book in an "organic, straightforward fashion." Blumberg says he mails out several copies of the novel each week and expects it to "stay alive as long as people continue to care about justice." ]

http://www.conniescomments.blogspot.com

(submitted/posted by Connie Cook Smith)





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


( Further Reading )

Links For The Reagan Assassination
And The Bush And Hinckley Families:

http://www.Padrak.com/alt/BUSHBOOK_7.html
THE ATTEMPTED COUP D'ETAT OF MARCH 30, 1981---Incredible Info.

http://John-Lennon.net

http://www.GeorgeWalkerBush.net

http://www.KMF.org/williams/bushbook.html

http://www.geocities.com/prohibition_us/dui.html

http://www.geocities.com/northstarzone/HINCKLEY.htm

Thanks to Mark Elsis ( Lovearth.net ) for above
additional research links.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MORE LINKS AND RESEARCH ON REAGAN ASSASSINATION ATTEMPT:

[ Special thanks to Virginia Raines ( [email protected] ) for yet more intriguing information and incredible links concerning Bush-Hinckley, evidence that Hinckley did not carry out the assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan. At the least, there has been much left out and covered up. And anyone who has the least bit of interest in getting to the TRUTH of 9-11 should take note that incredible evidence and even strikingly curious "coincidences" get swept under the rug in key historical cases such as this one. Moreover, one only needs to examine the useless 9-11 Commission which refuses to publicly examine officials in charge on the day of the attack UNDER OATH as an example of how to cover up the largest mass murder in U.S. history. Here is Virginia Raines' research and look at further evidence in the Reagan assassination attempt:

There are further questions -- particularly the World Vision connection. Here are a few bits to add to the query. Please share this information with Connie or anyone else who has doubts about the official story of the attempt on Reagan's life.

Reagan was blackmailed into taking on Bush as VP. Within just a few months, Bush Sr. was essentially co-president (or more).

"Bush is functioning much like a co-president. George is involved in all the national security stuff because of his special background as CIA director." -- White House press secretary James Brady, March 1981 Chapter XVII - 'The Attempted Coup D'Etat of March 30, 1981' 'George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography' by Webster G. Tarpley & Anton Chaitkin.

Video Evidence: Did Hinckley Really Shoot Reagan?
http://www.noveltynet.org/content/paranormal/www.parascope.com/mx/articles/hinckley.htm


[[Note that Reagan didn't think he was hit by a bullet at all -- and that leaves another question about just what happened; this is snipped from another page of the Tarpley and Chaitkin book]]

"Only the sixth and last bullet found Reagan, striking his armpit and tunneling into his chest. The president felt a sharp pain but thought it was only from Parr pushing him so hard. He looked at Parr and made a feeble joke: 'You sonofabitch, you broke my rib' just as the limousine raced away from the scene."


Namebase: (see social network diagram by clicking link)
http://www.namebase.org/main4/World-Vision.html



[[snipped from an intenet list -- this portion written by Brian Downing Quig]]

Of course there was a connection to Bush. The information below is very uninformed. At the time John Hinkley "shot" Reagan Hinkley's brother was having dinner with one of the Bush sons. Hinkley's father was a close friend of Bush senior and the number 2 man in a CIA front called WORLD VISION SOCIETY. The WORLD VISION SOCIETY purported to feed the world's hungry while all along their purpose was to manage refugee camps from which to recruit assassins. Today the WORLD VISION SOCIETY manages the refugee camp at the old Jones Town location where the CIA's Hmong mercenaries now are.

Chapman, the assassin of John Lennon, worked at a WORLD VISION SOCIETY managed refugee camp for the Cuban boat people at Fort Chaffee with the remnents of ALPHA 66. As Lennon was shot, president elect Reagan and his chosen CIA Director Bill Casey clinked champaign glasses a few blocks away in a New York City hotel. That is how they set the tenor of their administration.

And remember, the doctors said they removed a disc from Reagan--not a bullet. Barbara Honegger thinks Brady was the intended victim because of what he knew about the deal Reagan cut with the Iranians to delay the hostage release.



http://www.babelmagazine.com/issue82/jonestown.html:

Jonestown, CIA, World Vision, Hinckley and Bush from Internet posting:

One of the strangest CIA connections to Jonestown was World Vision, an evangelical order which often fronts for the CIA. They performed espionage work for the CIA in Southeast Asia while Operation Phoenix (the murderous project that left 40,000 people dead) was in full effect. In Honduras, they maintained a presence at CIA contra recruiting camps in the war against the Sandinistas. In Lebanon, the fascist Phalange butchered Palestinians at World Vision's camp. In Cuba, their refugee camps hosted numerous members of the anti-Castro terrorist group Alpha 66 of Bay of Pigs fame.

After the Guyana massacre, World Vision developed a scheme to repopulate Jonestown with CIA-linked mercenaries from Laos. Laos, of course, was where the CIA was running its "secret war" during Vietnam, which for the most part was a smokescreen for a widespread opium trafficking operation.

One particularly important World Vision official was John Hinckley, Sr., an oil man, reputed CIA officer, and friend of George Bush. You may have heard of his son.

Less than four months before Hinckley Jr. became known as Jodie Foster's biggest fan, another member of the World Vision order, Mark Chapman, gunned down John Lennon in what may have been a practice run for the bigger hit on President Reagan. One of the policemen who found him was convinced that he was a mind-controlled assassin. Chapman was clutching a copy of the novel "Catcher in the Rye," which was also owned by John Hinckley Jr. (The book was written by J.D. Salinger, who worked in military intelligence with Henry Kissinger during World War II.) Before going to trial, Chapman pleaded guilty after a voice in his head (which he attributed to God) commanded him to do so.

Considering the history of World Vision and what went on previously in Guyana, it is possible that the real purpose behind repopulating Jonestown was to create another breeding ground for brainwashed zombies like Chapman and Hinckley. Near Jonestown there was a place called Hilltown, a compound of 8,000 blacks that followed cult leader Rabbi David Hill, who held his flock with an iron fist. Hill had so much power that he was referred to as the "vice prime minister" of Guyana. There was also another place in Guyana called "Johnstown," as well as similar operations in the Philippines and Chile. It appears that Jonestown (and World Vision's later attempt) is hardly the exception to the rule of using obscure locations in Third World nations as laboratories for covert cult operations.

[[The "Cleon" mentioned here would be Cleon Skousen, I think. Gritz isn't always the best source for information, but what he says here can be found in other reports as well.]]



http://www.ez-websites.com/grudge/bo.htm

Excerpts from a talk given by Lt. Col. "Bo" Gritz in Mesa, Arizona on April 4, 1992:

In Mesa, I met with him [Cleon Skaas(?)] and I said, "Why in the world did Ronald Reagan sell us down the tube by taking George Bush as his running mate?" And I really didn't know that Cleon knew Ronald Reagan rather well. But he told me: He said, "Bo, George Bush was Ronald Reagan's greatest opponent," (if you'll remember, back in the 1980 elections), "and Ronald Reagan said he would never have him. Then, Ronald Reagan was invited to New York to go see Rockefeller. When he saw Rockefeller, he was told, 'If you do not take my head of the Trilateral Commission'" (remember, the Council on Foreign Relations, George Bush) "'as your running mate, the only way you'll see the inside of the White House is as a tourist.'"

Two months after he was inaugurated, two months is all that Ronald Reagan lasted. March 30th, 1981, two months after his inauguration in January of 1981, he was shot -- was he not? And the news said that he was shot by John Hinckley, Jr., and that John Hinckley, Jr., was some kind of a Jodie Foster freak. And that he came out of nowhere, and that he shot Brady in the head, and he shot a policeman in the neck, and he shot a Secret Service man and blew him back over the vehicle, and he shot Ronald Reagan. Right?

Well, remember the hardware. That's why I gave you a little introduction... I did. [Gritz had talked earlier about some sophisticated "tools of the trade."] Soon as I see this stuff I begin to wonder, because I've been a part of these kinds of operations. Let's just go back and review. It's all in the book [*Called to Serve*(?)], and so, very quickly I'll run down through you.

When Brady was shot, no question. Here we've got John Hinckley, Jr., Oh, by the way, is John Hinckley, Jr., just some kind of a "weirdo?" Isn't it strange that John Hinckley, Sr., is the owner of Vanderbilt Oil? And, of course, George Bush is the owner of Zapata Oil. Was it a coincidence, then, that John Hinckley, Sr., and George Bush are neighbors *for years* in Houston, Texas, working together? Is it any coincidence that John Hinckley, Sr., when you go back through the FEC, the Federal Election Commission, his own record of giving maximum donations every year to Mr. Bush even when he started running for Congress. Well now, does that make his son, John Hinckley, Jr., seem a little bit less of a coincidence? I think it does. Here's why:

When the President was shot, if you'll remember, he was pushed into the car by a man named Jerry Parr(sp?) that was his Secret Service guard. Jerry Parr fell on top of him and, I just saw in the *Reader's Digest* where Jerry Parr was telling his "valiant story." And the limousine tore off, didn't it? Now it was *five minutes later* that the ambulance arrived and they put the Secret Service man, the Washington, D.C. policeman, and Brady in the ambulance and *it* roared off. Using normal time-rate/distance, who should have arrived at George Washington University Hospital first? The President should have. Well, who did? You know it's a trick question. The ambulance arrived 15 minutes before the President. When asked, "What happened?" the Secret Service simply responded, "We got lost."

The Secret Service does not get lost in Washington, D.C. They don't get lost in most places of the world. And so, now the investigation starts to get a little interesting. When they take Ronald Reagan in, they can see that he... matter of fact, his heart almost stopped. And he is convulsing; there's blood on his lips. They know he's hurt... seriously. But they can find no wounds. They X-ray him *3 times* and can find nothing.

Finally, a nurse notices a tiny entrance wound right at the seventh rib, underneath the armpit. And a doctor takes a probe, and by... very carefully, because they couldn't see it on X-ray, the doctor is able to extract what he said was a planchet, thinner than a dime, that was one-quarter inch from Ronald Reagan's aorta.

Now, Ronald Reagan says... as a matter of fact, let me just see if I can just read it to you... best what Ronnie says. I've got all this in the book... This came right out of a newspaper:

I knew I had been hurt, but I thought that I'd been hurt by the Secret Service man landing on me in the car. As it was, I must say it was the most paralyzing pain. I've described it as if someone hit you with a hammer. But the sensation, it seemed to me, came after I was in the car and so I thought that maybe his gun or something had broken a rib. I set up on the seat, and the pain wouldn't go away -- and suddenly, I found I was coughing up blood. Now you see, to almost anyone else you might say, "Well, just some kind of a fluke." But I'm a skeptic. Because I know how these things have happened ever since they "took out" John Fitzgerald Kennedy. I think maybe JFK was the last honest President that we had... ]
 
An all you that were disappointed in Reagan will probably be more disapointed in RP. When he doesn't wave his hand and the country is pure again, you will be cursing him.

I would have voted for Reagan over RP in 1980 but I would vote for RP over Reagan now. The times are different.

I really didn't want to get into this debate but like normal people like to bring up subjects that will hurt RP's cause as long as they have their free speach.
I remember how Reagan was savaged by the democrats and the press about the soup kitchens, the Reaganvilles, the homeless, and how he cut the safety net. I remember how he lost 24 house seats in '82, a House that was already controled by the democrats. I remember how every budget he proposed was declared "dead on Arrival" by the the congressional leaders.
We will see how RP does when he refuses to sign an unbalanced budget and every federal worker is out on the street and every state worker that relies on federal funding as well. Wait until he loses 100 house seats and 25 senate seats. How effective will he be?
Reagan wasn't perfect and neither is RP. The American people are not going to give RP a congress that will go along with him. They will give him a congress that will be fighting tooth and nail to keep everyones favorite federal program. That is the reality of our politics.

Some pretty bold statements for this forum in 2007. Very well thought out posts. Reagan was a great man and a great President.
 
Back
Top