Talk Elections

I mean no disrespect to Mrs. Reagan and her family, but how do you think the passing of Ronald Reagan will help President Bush. Will people see Bush as carrying on Reagan's message?

Everyone talking about Ronald Reagan fondly can't hurt him.  Might give a temporary boost.

Bush's speech tonight could be a gain for him, although he probably won't rehearse it too much, so he could sound unpolished.

It should have no effect.  People would not look fondly on Bush or Republicans if they looked like they were trying to gain a political advantage.  And God help any of the Dems if they let fly any moveon.org type rhettoric toward Reagan or any of his accomplishments.

May he rest in peace.

Quite right.  

Now what were his accomplishments?  I mean, other than sending two nuclear powered aircraft carrier battle groups to Grenada, soundly defeating the four Cuban janitors on the island nation?

I simply cannot recall any other "accomplishments".  Oh! Yes!  Now I recall -- how Ronnie single handedly (and overnight) crushed the Evil Empire, thus tumbling the Berlin Wall.  Yes yes yes.  Silly me - I thought decades of "containment" did that trick.

()


Rest well, Ronald Reagan.

Essentially none. Most people could care less. Those who do are as likely to be psychopathic ABB trolls as conservatives who simply mourn the loss of a great President. Not only that, those conservatives are Constitution Party freaks who b*tch and moan that "Bush is trashing Reagan's legacy", or some other nonsense.

Allow me a moment to grieve.

I have a feeling that his death will make people say 'It's such a sad loss, but im still going to vote for Bush/Kerry' It won't make much difference. At least hes no longer a candidate for the 'October suprise'

Fabulous photo.  Look at him -- all action, engaged in the world, as a president should be.

I was a bit young to recall Reagan in real-time, and while I dislike his policies, at LEAST he truly believed in them.

Rest in Peace, Ronald Reagan.. even from those who did not like your policies. A lot has been said on Network TV in the last 24 hours-quite rightly too-about his sense of humour and good natured attitude towards his domestic political opponents. In fact have just watched Meet The Press and seen Sen McCain discuss the similar partisan nature of Washington in the early 80's yet extol his ability to "get together with Tip O'Neill and share jokes" after the day's work was done....pretty much the EXACT SAME, verbatim as what John Kerry has said in his statement on Reagan's death. Coincidental or what?...hmmmmmm

As regards the effect overall probably not much in the long term, when all is said and done. Had it happened closer to November perhaps. It may also make people see how much Bush has failed in comparison to Reagan as being a uniter..or maybe not!

Of course it helps Bush.

It does?  Look, I have no fondness for Reagan's presidency and his "philosophy" (more mentality, really), but the man was charming, and he was truly a great speaker.

Bush, on the other hand, speaks as if he's hooked on phonics -- hooked on something, anyways.  He speaks as if English is his second language!  He has zero charm, he is without gravitas, and he delivers a speech with all of the authority and conviction of a farting fly.  He stumbles, mumbles, he mangles names and places.

His posture is slouched and bent -- I think the Pope looked in better shape than Bush.  His hunched shoulders and bent frame suggests to the viewer that Bush is really thinking, "I need to vomit", more than "I shall inspire".

His comportment is that of an ex-drunk giving his first or tenth speech at "Toastmasters", not a leader eulogizing his "equal".  He leaves earthbound even the most soaring words  -- words no one would ever, ever suggest he wrote.

Now compare the Great Oraculator to the Great Communicator, and folks will conclude the same thing: Bush is a nobody president.  Bush most certainty will be dwarfed by Reagan -- dead, or alive.

Which will lead to the comparison of Bush and Kerry.  Whether you like or dislike Mr. Kerry, he can finish a sentence, and a thought.  He is educated.  He is smart.  In short, he ain't Stumble Bum Bush.  

Second point:  Reagan was a stud -- he really was.  A person posted this pix early in this thread:

()


Can you imagine how proud people felt, and feel, when they see this hunk of a man -- their president, a stud, talking about grand things with a noted world leader.   I dislike Reagan, but I was really touched by his "presence".

Compare Reagan with George W.  Bush.  This photo is from AP, taken on Memorial Day:


()

Compare and contrast.  Bush looks fussy, and bothered to be there.  The photo speaks to what I have written.

You tell me how Bush comes out ahead.

What?  He looks emotional.  Your right, he looks bothered, but bothered by the emotional context of the situation, not by being there.

()

If "snippy" and "prissy" and "sissified" are emotions, then yes, he was emoting.  Bothered by the context of laying a wreath?  Nope.  I don't see it that way, but perhaps I'm wrong.

So how does the photo of Bush stack up to Reagan's?  Bush still gonna "win big", courtesy of the Gipper?

Yes, Kerry can finish a sentence.  Not only that but he has the unprecedented talent of being able to  take both sides of the same issue before he finishes it.

Excellent speaking skills does not a leader make. Hitler would be one example. He had the power to persuade and his words struck the hearts of the Germans. He by no means bumbled and fumbled as you like to say. Bush is well educated and intelligent. He's just not the best a public speaking. It's meaningless really.

Of course there is a stark contrast between the personality of Bush and Reagan, but no less than the contrast between Kerry and Reagan. As far as policy, Bush is closer to Reagan than he is to his own father's politics as President. The idea that Bush is continuing the Reagan revolution has been written about extensively. All the media time spent on Reagan's presidency will remind people who voted for Reagan how similar the two men's conservatism is.

Reagan's death may soften a small but significant amount of Bush hatred, as loss has a way of clarifying emotion and draining frenetic energy.  Certainly no hard core Bush haters will convert, but more conservative Reagan Democrat types who were disenchanted with Bush might be inclined to give him a second look this summer.

"Excellent"?  I'd settle for average.   The man cannot speak the English language -- he doesn't speak in complete sentences, his mind occasionally wanders off while in the middle of answeriing a question.  "Excellent" is nice, but being able to express oneself clearly is a considerable part of being employable!  What's that commercial on the Rush "Dr. Feelgood" show, "Fairly or not, people DO judge you by the way you speak"!

The topic of this thread was to comment on how Reagan's death will rub off on Bush.  I believe the two presidents -- Bush and Reagan -- will be "sized up", and Bush will be seen as a cruel hoax of a statesman -- out of his element, above his game, and utterly inferior.  You can make all the excuses you wish, but that comparison will prove unkind to Bush.

A more interesting question, perhaps, is who really remembers anything Reagan ever really accomplished?  I don't mean how he charmed  or wooed your average American -- I mean in terms of actual successes during his presidency.  The news has been a little "light" in that regard.  No wonder.  Aside from populating prisons with cabinet-level officials and trading guns with the terrorists in Iran, I'm having a difficult time recalling any.  Must be old age...



Ah, yeah.  Keep telling yourself that.

Did you go to Yale? Anyways, it is what the man DOES that matters. I mean I could go for better public speaking skills but he still does get the point across. I find myself much like the man when speaking before public. He is the shy sort, that's mainly his problem. Other then bringing down communism, Reagan didn't do to much I guess! ::)  Oh yeah I forgot 525-13. But that's not really much of an accomplishment I guess. ::)

I have one.  He is given credit for getting us out of Carter's economic mess.  12% inflation, 7.6% unemployment, 14% interest rates, etc, etc.

At least the voters gave him credit for it given that he came within 3,000 votes in Minn. of sweeping all 50 states.  Someone must of thought he did ok.  I'll leave it at that.

()

Reagan wasn't THAT great!!!   ::) ::)

No. Columbia.  Nor was I a "C" student, a "legacy" admission, or in a state of constant intoxification.  

But back to "Topic "A", as Tina Brown would say.   How will Bush be viewed when contrasted with Ronnie Reagan?


()

Bush is about equal to Ronald Reagan in their ideals. I imagine however the Reagan will be seen in a better light due to the fact that his personality is warmer. We will see how Bush does during his second term. And as for "a""b"c" student, it doesn't really matter. A college education isn't even a requirement to be president! As long as you are completely failing and no nothing I have no problem.

I'll agree with that.  I was born just 13 months after Reagan was shot and just 15 months after Jimmy Carter handed over to Ronald Reagan.  I think Reagan was one of our best presidents ranking up there with Abe Lincoln and FDR.

I think Bush 43's policies are more like Reagan's than Bush 41's and therefore, to reiterate your point Mort, might increase his chances this November.

However, I must say that it could in some small way help Kerry, too.  Kerry was the first one, I think, of the two who suspended campaigning for the week.  John Kerry had some very respectful words for the late president and said nothing bad about him.  That, along with what I believe to be his refusal to attack Bush's character as a man, might give those Reagan Democrats even more reason to vote for Kerry.

I put those Reagan Democrats now into the "undecided" voters column.  Reason is that the death of Reagan could help both candidates.

If there are any Reagan Democrats in this forum, please feel free to say that you are or are not an undecided and to say which way you lean.

::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)

I suspect it will be a push.  Bush could gain a slight advantage if he played his cards right, or the Dems mess up signifgantly - but currently the former is barely happening, and the latter hasn't.

Bush best play is to simply let the media feed on itself, and react with quiet dignity.  Unfortunately, several members of congress are trying to milk it for all it's worth, which will likely turn some people off and nulify any advantage he might gain from it.   If he tries to turn the eulogy into a stump speech, he's likely to get the Republican response to the Wellstone funeral thrown back into his face.

Trying to compare himself with Reagan would be a major error - Kerry could easily recycle and paraphrase the old Bentsen remark that he knew Reagan, worked with Reagan, and that Bush is no Ronald Reagan.   (Kerry would be well advised to play down the JFK comparisons for the same reason).

Though some bloggers seem to be rather meanspirited, the Democratic establishment has gone out of it's way to be diplomatic about it.  Even the very liberal Nancy Pelosi was speaking Reagans praises.

Just a few comparisons:

Reagan was considered a dumb cowboy actor.
Bush is considered dumb cowboy oilman.

Reagan was considered a cowboy for taking on communism.
Bush is considered a cowboy for taking on terrorism.

The Europeans, except for England and the people of Eastern Europe, hated Reagan.
The Europeans, except for England and the people of Eastern Europe, hate Bush.

Reagan's policy to cut taxes to spur the economy in the 1980's brought us out of recession and caused the greatest economic expansion in many years.
Bush's policy to cut taxes to spur the economy in the 2000's brought us out of recession and caused the greatest economic expansion in many years.

Reagan was consistently underestimated by his opponents.
Bush is consistently underestimated by his opponents.

Reagan had great pride and optimism for America and freedom throughout the world. Bush has great pride and optimism for America and freedom throughout the world.



 

No.  Reagan was a dumb "B" movie actor who frequently played a cowboy.

Bush is a dummy who couldn't cut it in the oil business, so he tried politics.  The only thing "cowboy" about him is his recklessness.

I would agree with this. Both men are viewed by their detractors as being naive and stubborn in their beliefs:

that freedom is a natural right that takes on a life of it's own in creating a stable and thriving society;

that tyranny requires great energy to suppress freedom, and is inherently unstable and doomed to collapse.

We see the same confident attitude in Reagan's approach to the Soviet Union, and Bush's to Iraq.

let's not get carried away, GWB is no RWR

No, he is no Great Communicator.

But he has the same stubborn belief in freedom as a motivating force in the world, a quality which drives to fits both Reagan-haters and Bush-haters.

a given

---


I disagree.

I saw an interesting letter in the newspaper today.

A man wrote in saying that he would pay the ultimate compliment to Ronald Reagan by voting for George W. Bush in November.  

He said Reagan's death made him realize that he had been wrong in opposing Reagan's policies as a college student, and that he could very well be wrong in opposing Bush today.

He compared Reagan's determination to confront communism, scoffed at by most of the "elites" to Bush's determination to confront terrorism and Islamofascism, something that is also scoffed at by our "best and brightest" in places like New York, Boston and San Francisco.

I wonder how wide a trend it will be.

Hah, that's great.  It wouldn't take very many like this guy to lock it up for Bush!

It doesn't need to be a big trend. The passing of Reagan, coupled with steady achievements in Iraq, may turn on the light in the minds of those Reagan Democrats who were Clinton and Gore supporters the last three cycles, but really are having queasy feelings about Kerry as Commander in Chief.

"It doesn't need to be a big trend"?  Have you seen any polling data?

It was an absurdity to attempt to compare Bush with Ronnie, and the Bush people really messed in their shorts by even attempting it.  Ronnie wasn't my fave prezzie, but he was grand, he was charming.  Reagan diffused many a difficult situation with a well-time "wink" or a "nod".  Bush, OTOH, when confronted with a question (when he takes questions) that's outside of his Rovian playbook inevitably looks like a pissy deer, caught in headlights.

()


No, Ronnie wasn't buried alone: the second term of Bush/Cheney was also interred this week.  RIP!!!!



- Alfie

Why? Bush may not come across as the cheerful guy Reagan was, but he still seems to me to be the same stubborn optimist about freedom. That cockiness that pisses off so many people is evidence of his confidence in the rightness of what he's doing.

You don't think that he holds this belief - that success in Iraq will come because it is human nature for the Iraqis to fight to establish a government where basic human rights are guaranteed?

Polls, shmolls, it's June.

It doesn't take a miracle for a 3-4% shift to occur over 4-5 months.

In October, when the true Reagan Democrats have to make up their mind, they won't be able to bring themselves to vote for Kerry. They'll be reminded of why they voted against Carter and Mondale, and pull the lever for Bush.

There's an interesting article in yesterday's  NYT  (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/11/politics/campaign/11VOTE.html) about "undecided voters", and if what is written is true, your worst fears are to become reality.

"They are more likely to be white than black, female than male, married than single, and live in the suburbs rather than in large cities. They are not frequent churchgoers nor gun enthusiasts. They are clustered in swing states like Ohio, Michigan and here in Pennsylvania. And while they follow the news closely, they are largely indifferent to the back and forth of this year's race for president."

Two points, if I may:

1.  Kerry is cleaning Bush's clock with women, minorities, and independent votes in most "swing" states.  If, as the Times' suggest, a majority of "undecideds" are women, this bodes poorly for Bush.

2.  Kerry has made huge strides in polling throughout the spring.  Bush, who should have had no problem with re-election, is now falling behind in the following critical swing states:

In Ohio, Kerry leads Bush 45%-42%
In Michigan, Kerry leads Bush 45%-43%
In Pennsylvania, Kerry leads Bush 44%-41%

You may be right -- perhaps Bush can make a comeback, but in my view, Bush's glory days are all behind him, and it is a cruel and bitter wind blowing in his face until election day.  No, I think we have a lame chicken hawk on our hands.  Now the question becomes "will he leave quietly"?

- Alfie

As someone pointed out, GWB is no RWR.  Any overt attempt to make a comparison is likely to result in disaster.

Reagan campaigned from the right, and governed from the right leaning center (he raised taxes several times for example.  And sought cutbacks in nukes as another example  Neither particularly conservative things to do)

Bush Campaigned as a right leaning moderate and governs from the extreme right.

Yes the New York Times, always known for truthful journalism. I hear the National Enquirer has been reporting more truth in their stories lately!

Did you read the story?  What part, or which parts, do you believe were in error?  

If you didn't read the article, let me ask: do you always let your anus speak for you?  Is it because your mouth knows better?


Troll.


()

Yawn. Reported.