Campaign Crawlers
The War of the Presidents: Reagan Battles Obama in 2010
Reagan conservatism takes on Obama progressivism as voters flee to followers of late president.
Now it begins.
The iconic election contest of the new century: Barack Obama versus…Ronald Reagan.
In one corner of the ring: progressivism/statism/liberalism as championed by Obama. In the other: Reagan conservatism/individual liberty and freedom. It will be a knock down, no-holds barred fight, with Obama progressives already on the ropes, the consequences and costs of but one year of Obama in power with an Obama-controlled Congress having been driven home to startled Americans.
Neither Obama nor the late President Reagan will have his name on a ballot anywhere this election year. President Obama does not face the voters for another two years, and former President Reagan, of course, passed from the scene in 2004.
Yet in a high-speed culture in which politics is conducted in the short-hand of sound-bites, the 2010 election can be easily summarized by the last names of the two presidents immutably identified with their respective governing philosophies, making the first national election of the 21st century’s second decade a virtual War of the Presidents. It will beget one simple question. Are you Reagan or Obama?
There is a reason that the Obama White House repeatedly attempts to drag George W. Bush back into the arena beyond Bush’s unpopularity with the electorate. The reason? It’s one thing to take on the unpopular and very much alive Bush, who left office with a 22% approval rating in a final CBS News/New York Times poll. It’s another thing entirely to take on the revered Reagan. Gallup polls in 2001 and 2007 — one each three years before his death and three years afterwards — had Americans ranking Reagan as either America’s greatest president or number two — right behind Lincoln.
Yet one has to hand it to Obama’s advisers. In the guise of fixing this, that or another alleged “mess” that has been, as Obama likes to say, “inherited” from Bush, it is now abundantly clear that the Obama White House game is to use Bush as the excuse to instigate what former Vice President Cheney recently called “what seems to be the goal of his presidency: social transformation, the restructuring of American society.”
But the social transformation and restructuring of American society from…what?
Answer: the American society and structure that Ronald Reagan set in motion from the moment his own hand came off the inaugural bible 29 years ago this month. A society in which, between 1981 and 2008, almost 45 million jobs were created and the Cold War was not only won outright but the Soviet Union vanished atop what Reagan once called the ash heap of history.
Americans, tired of Bush in 2008 and soothed by the perception of Obama’s moderate tone, have spent the last year moving from expectation to uncertainty to concern to alarm and finally furious anger over the approach of the Obama administration. Shocked recognition has set in that whether the subject was the stimulus bill, the state of American car companies, banks and financial institutions, the incessant trips abroad to apologize for America, the hesitation on winning the war in Afghanistan, the effective seizure of the private health care system or bringing the 9/11 terrorists to New York for trial instead of treating them as military combatants, not to mention the piling up of untold trillions in debt — no matter the subject, invoking Bush was and is a cover for the real game.
The real game?
For Obama to remake America from the bottom up into a statist utopia as long envisioned by American and European “progressives.” To fundamentally change — forever — the role of government in everyday American life. To remove as much individual liberty and freedom as they can get away with and replace it with government control, on the old theory that only economic and political elites can correctly order the affairs of the average man and woman. Making of America a quasi-socialist state on the model favored by leftists of one stripe or another for all or parts of three centuries. If the Obama progressives could manage it, the idea would be to drop the “quasi” altogether.
The dog that doesn’t bark in this scenario?
The same relentless attacks on Reagan that have been directed at the unpopular Bush and Cheney. There are none. Why?
“Perhaps the most cogent exposition of the conservative political philosophy….was made by a professional actor, Ronald Reagan,” wrote Arthur Krock, the curmudgeonly dean of the New York Times after Reagan’s famous speech for Barry Goldwater in 1964, more prescient than he could know. Both in his lifetime and since, it is Reagan alone who has been the most successful spokesman for the opposition to the left-wing “progressive” philosophy Obama is out to impose on the country. And in one form or another, on one issue or another, it is Reagan that Obama has been trying to overturn — not George W. Bush. Hence, the strategy: attack the unpopular Bush always, the legendarily popular Reagan never. Blame Bush — while repealing Reagan.
About the Author
Jeffrey Lord is a former Reagan White House political director and author. He writes from Pennsylvania at jlpa1@aol.com.
Lullaby's, Legends and Lies| 1.5.10 @ 6:50AM
Can we vote for the ghost of Reagan in the next Presidential Election, is that at all possible? Just look how far we've fallen, in such a short time, it's a real shame isn't it? The one Man loved his Country, and then this Man? What a shame!!
Margie| 1.5.10 @ 3:11PM
Yes but Ronald Reagan lives on inside you and me and many of the posters on this site and all over the country. ..and we are getting ready, and have been contributing to conservative Republicans.
The Left is trying to undermine the Republican party and divide the vote by promoting Third Party propaganda, which would give us Obama II.
I for one am not fooled. I hope others aren't as well!
SoCon| 1.5.10 @ 5:03PM
Right on, Margie! Our precious Conservative ideals are timeless and immutable; they are based on our God given gifts of individual freedom and individual dignity.
Our rights as free men and women come from God not man: I bow to God--no man.
A lot of Americans believe as I do, good luck trying to change us, Liberals.
Margie| 1.5.10 @ 5:08PM
You made my day and encouraged my heart!
They can't take away what God has given us. Even death can't separate us.
SoCon| 1.5.10 @ 6:18PM
Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior, will NEVER forsake us.
Works for me!
Pat| 1.5.10 @ 9:22PM
I love the selective memories you folks have.Regan ran the budget through the roof spending crazy sums of money on defense,you know the $200 dollar hammers and the $300 toilet seats.Yeah we spent exceedingly more than the Soviets which set us up for the next recession.He also started this wonderful bank deregulation process that Phil Graham finished and that will lead us to second nation status reguardless of what Obama does.He set us up for the S&L crisis that cost the taxpayer $750,000,000 in 1990's dollars.How much since does it make to let banks invest in junk bonds and speculative commercial realistate while the taxpayer issurers the damn deposits.I voted for him and Bush but glorifying the one who wrote the book on "cronie capitalism" is nuts.I am still repenting for my niave stupidity.The banks still have 2 trillion in write downs and 400 billion in option arms that will take us into a double dip recession.Way to go Ronnie and Phil.Obama is working to finish us off.
Smitty| 1.6.10 @ 1:17AM
Stupid. Reagan's free market policies were responsible for decades of economic growth which led to historic prosperity for millions of Americans.
His brilliant diplomacy defeated the Soviet Union without firing a shot, freeing millions living under the boot of Communist oppression.
And still you whine, bitch and moan. You must be a real hoot at parties; so glad I never have to find out.
Pat| 1.6.10 @ 4:54PM
Prove your cause and effect with the Soviet Union.All we know for sure is that they had a financial collapse.It very easy to see how stupid it was for him to deregulate bank lending and allow huge risk taking and at the same time allow the taxpayer to back the capital.Things have not change.Why are these banks like Citi and BAC too big to fail?Because we insure their 2 trillion iof their deposits.The Fed also controlls interest rates instead of allowing supply and demand set interest rates.That is half ass deregulation in favor of the big banks.They win whenthings are going well and pay the bill when they screw up.It is not free market capitalism but rather it is" cronie capitalism".I am bitching and moaning because he set this thing into motion and both parties kept making it worse and worse.I don't blame him he was just the front man for Donald Regan,Clinton was the front man for Rubin,and Obama is also the front man for Rubin.You and I pay the bills in both blow ups.I have managed money for 25 years on Wall Sreet and I have seen how they operate.(D) Rbin and (R) Graham finished made the crowning blow by killing GLass Stegall.By the way only 9 senators voted against it.
Bill| 1.6.10 @ 8:08AM
Pat, are you for real? When RR took office the federal government was taking in $600 billion in revenue. When he left office, they were taking in 1.2 trillion. Even after his across the board tax cuts that you lefties complained about. The budget at that time was still in deficit. Why? Because Tip O’Neill, and the rest of the democrats, controlled congress. They spent $1.25 for every dollar that they took in. Which included the $300 toilet seats. I love how you lefties have selective memory.
Pat| 1.6.10 @ 5:15PM
How does he get credit for those outcomes?You have not shown that he caused those things anymore than Clinton can take credit for the huge job growth and the longest recovery in history.Even with the economic decline in the early 90's of the Soviet Union you must prove to me how Regan did.It is like the liberals saying that because they didn't find WMD's in Iraq therefore they were never there.I don't believe that.
John Navratil| 1.6.10 @ 4:47PM
Pat,
Much as I disagree with your overall tone here (being a conservative with a Reagan shrine in my living room), I must criticize some and defend others of you statements.
I don't recall the $200 hammers, but remember well the $600 toilet seat (covers, I believe). When you are building prototype quantities of anything, as was the case here, you will spend seemingly inordinate amounts of money. You may choose to hand manufacture them or drop $25,000 or so in hard-tooling to pop them out for pennies. No easy choice when you need half-a-dozen.
You point on the S&L setup is valid. It certainly was not Reagan's best work when he supported the "Garn-St Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982". A bill fully entitled "An Act to revitalize the housing industry by strengthening the financial stability of home mortgage lending institutions and ensuring the availability of home mortgage loans". There are those pesky home loans, again. You may read Reagan's remarks on signing the bill at http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/a.....01582b.htm
Still, you may remove the hair shirt as Reagan's accomplishments in the economic arena are, by no means, meager.
John Navratil| 1.6.10 @ 4:48PM
Apologies - I surely wish I could break the habit of typing "you" when I mean to type "your".
Pat | 1.6.10 @ 5:40PM
When it comes to grammar and spelling ,I suck.That's the reason my partner who took seven writing coarses at Brown after his freshman english prof insulted him does our writing.My secretary does the routine writing.On the other hand,I make lots of money for our clients.You seem like you have done some research on the bank deregulation issue and sometime in the future,I would like to resume this dicussion.I would also like to have an exchange with you on what caused the Soiet economic decline. That is is the real question.What part did President Regan play in that decline?Could there be radom economic disruptions that converged at the same time that had a cause and effect?I voted for Nixon,Regan twice,and both Bushes.I liked President Regan but I am not sure that he was as great as we conservatives have made him.I don't give any president a lot of credit for good economies but they can definitely screw them up.
Counthis| 1.5.10 @ 7:53AM
Twentieth century ended at the end of 2000,otherwise you would have been living in the 19.99th century. 2010 is the last national election of the first decade of the twenty first century. Count from one to ten and then read Peter Hannaford's essay in this publication about the lost decade.
Mattled| 1.5.10 @ 8:06AM
"Yet in a high-speed culture in which politics is conducted in the short-hand of sound-bites, ...."
Yes Mr. Lord-----that is correct. And the Media gets away with it---lies and taken out of context.
I have watched CNN many times and watch a story (I already know full well the whole story) and see them stop short of telling the whole story-----by about 50% and now even more leading their viewers (they take for chumps) to believe the liberal spin.
The entire DNC- Media takes this media-model and gets away with it.
What will we do about it? What will you and NRO, MRC, Powerline, etc. etc. do about it?
WE need a massive effort to crush the media and it's DNC talking points.
Did you see the NPR cartoon (How to talk teabag)? I am going to find NPR sponsors and call them.
If we don't defeat the media, we can't defeat the libs.
Blackwatch| 1.5.10 @ 8:01PM
Exactly--we need to obiliterate the Democrat media. I am already boycotting anything made by General Electric if I can help it--and I am telling my customers to do the same. If you watch MSNBC or read the LATimes or NYTimes don't patronize their advertisers. And it never hurts to tell a business why you don't shop there or why you won't use their products/services.
Liberty or Death| 1.5.10 @ 9:06PM
Mattled--
Do not stress. The BIG media is becoming irrelevant. The proof is in the ratings. FOX News is wiping the proverbial map with them by the thousands. And why? Because people are finally seeing that the established, BIG media is a BIG lie. People want the truth. The only people still watching those networks are either: A. The apathetic who occasionally turn it over to the news to watch the weather. Or, B. The Kookville fringe on the Left who hate their country and enjoy watching Oberdork and that ugly chick whip them into a zombie frenzy-- usually resulting from some (by now clichéd) comment against the BUSH administration. My mini cricket violin rubs together for them all.
Things are changing.
Conservatives are becoming emboldened. They aren't afraid to be labeled "racists," if they disagree with The One. They aren't fearful of speaking up in the workplace (I do it almost daily). Our message is growing. The momentum is completely on our side, not theirs.
You can feel it in the air. The smirks and guffaws in the theater when some Hollywood, libtarded idea is espoused as a "great truth." The thumbs up given to a passerby on the highway, who sees a bumper sticker on a fellow conservative's window that reads, "I'll keep my guns. You can keep your change."
People are starting to see that America isn't as bad as they are being told it is. The media will die along with Obama's popularity (which wanes daily); they are one and the same. They hitched their wagon to his whole repertoire and nobody has forgotten that.
The times are changing indeed.
Healthcare and his mishandling of terrorism is the final straw. Americans are at the breaking point with his incompetence.
God help us if something horrific happens on Obama's watch.
JimH| 1.5.10 @ 8:16AM
If Dems are allowed to have dead voters, why can't we have a dead candidate?
Alan Brooks| 1.5.10 @ 8:21AM
Clinton was even "better" than Reagan, although Clinton would never have been elected if Reagan and Bush 41 hadn't brought the Cold War to a speedier conclusion.
It would have made quite a difference if the Cold War had ended in, say, '95 instead of '91. I like Clinton because I am a conservative, not a rightwinger; rightwing propaganda does not interest me so keep it yourselves.
Or your children-- they are captive audiences.
Indiana Alex| 1.5.10 @ 8:55AM
Read my comments to "Bob". You are either terribly uninformed or purposely ignorant.
Alan Brooks| 1.5.10 @ 11:56AM
I'm not interested in:
a. your comments
b. your opinions on my comments
c. anything that any Hoosier thinks
d. any Midwestern politics or Midwestern-derived politics, save for agricultural politics
RAMIII| 1.5.10 @ 1:14PM
You are very intelligent, I can see that.
The wise man receives instruction and becomes wiser. The fool opens his mouth and removes all shadow of a doubt.
Alan Brooks| 1.5.10 @ 1:30PM
Proverb?:
"take the mote out of thine own eye."
Margie| 1.5.10 @ 3:17PM
Ok Alan, say I take the mite out of my own eye, then will you take the log out of yours?
I guess then that would make for the free and open exchange of ideas and of opinions, right?
SoCon| 1.5.10 @ 5:06PM
Alan is "sensitive."
Alan, your rubber room called--it's missing you.
Margie| 1.5.10 @ 5:11PM
yeah about as sensitive as an old cougar! :) (he's busy over yonder excoriating conservatives at the moment).
RAMIII| 1.6.10 @ 6:25PM
I need the assistance of others who care to help me remove the speck out of my eye, so I can see better and more clearly. Do you desire such influence?
RAMIII| 1.6.10 @ 6:27PM
BTW the question was for Alan.
Roy Larsen| 1.5.10 @ 8:20PM
Alan - for some one thats "not interested" in someone's else' point of view, you sure have a lot to say. I bet you think everyone else is interested in your thoughts. Alan - your an Idiot.
Son Of Sam | 1.5.10 @ 11:52AM
The assertion that you are a "conservative" is laughable: real conservatives know that Clinton was and is a living pile of slime. Don't even think about trying to push your noxious ideologies on me
don't go away mad you pompous dumbass, just go away
stand strong until freedom dawns
Son Of Sam
http://www.samadamssos.bravehost.com/
Alan Brooks| 1.5.10 @ 11:59AM
anyone called Son of Sam at AS is a joke.
how 'bout Zodiac? Jack the Ripper?
I'm voting for Obama in '12 to, for starters, spite you.
Alan Brooks| 1.5.10 @ 12:03PM
Axman sounds better than Son of Sam. Alrighty?
aintchew a Southin' boy, Sammy?
Helen Donnelly| 1.5.10 @ 3:01PM
You would....
SoCon| 1.5.10 @ 5:15PM
Alan, you've always been a little daft, a little loony, but there was a sweetness to your manner that was disarming. When did you get so very mean? I used to enjoy your posts, now they just sadden me.
You didn't used to be so nasty; what happened to you?
I hope you're okay.
Please don't post here anymore; return to Huff/Po and Daily Kos where you belong.
Helen Donnelly| 1.5.10 @ 2:42PM
Alan: Excuse me buster, but if you are a "conservative", you do not espouse the ideas of Bill Clinton. Rather you would be hook line and sinker with Ronald Reagan. Inf the future, I would suggest some serious research before you spout such ridiculous things, my friend.
Roy| 1.5.10 @ 8:14PM
Alan -your an idiot.
Roy| 1.5.10 @ 8:34PM
The above, by the way, isn't me(in case anyone cares).
Ret. Businessman| 1.5.10 @ 8:32AM
When I was in business, before I sold it and retired some 10 years back , I used to tell my employees to think on this one subject alone in their daily incurission with my clients. Always think and act as though we are much larger than we actually are. This leaves the customer with the confidence they need in order to think we can accomplish anything, anytime any place. It worked.
I did not get this notion from my own thinking, I actually got it from watching Mr. Regan and his example of honesty, integrity and always mindful of our responsibilities to leave the door of opportunities open to all who wished it. He was good at guiding many of us with the sound advise of an adult. I watched the lib's heads spin right off their tracks, he set into motion the bigger than thou art impression of our defense so much the Soviet Union collapsed under the weight and thought of just keeping up with the Jone's attitude. Well the regressive politicians fainted in disbelief and collapse at the horror of a simple truth, some people are naturally smarter than others and have the common sense to understand the whole picture, vrs. short term windbags.
It is not enough to paint a picture of who you are without the back up attitude to provide the momentum. I guess what I am trying to say here is nothing could be more different in comparison of obama and Mr. Regan. obama believes he too is larger than life, but can not get past the part of the public believing in him or his policies. Hell we are still undecided as to whether he is an American as required in the Constitutional sense.
The last thing this admin will admit is failure on any part, on any topic. They must continue to strive to get ahead of the turn further down the road. As progressive believe in their own adventures they fail to understand that normal to Americans is, Freedom of choice, freedom of expression, movement, debate, discussion and freedom to understand that Gov. is not the solution, it is the problem.
While I am happy and might add gettting fat at the moment of my life's accomplishment I understand the need for all our youth to grab onto lessons that make a mark upon their lives in order to move foreward in their personal achievements and development into adults, I am fully aware of the lack of leadership in this time of our history and the effect it will have on the generation behind us adults. They too willl have to learn lessons the usual way, one of trial and error, personal decisions and sacrifices, truth and lies. It is not helpful in any form to compare the two, they are simply one shade of darkness, ( it's not the pigment of his skin but the color of his policies, red diaper doper baby) obama and the other of light, Mr. Ragan. They, no doubt will leave a mark upon this Country for their accomplishments, I just don't think dumping our God given rights out with the bathwater is one of them that history will be very kind to.
Bob| 1.5.10 @ 8:33AM
Jeffrey, the sad truth is that people like you believe what you say. Yes, I agree that the argument has become Reagan v. Obama because the extreme right has no one else as a reference. Modern right wing politics are far different from Reagan's politics -- much more strident and less accepting of other points of view.
Perhaps the biggest difference is that Reagan was an accepting, positive leader. He did not personally berate people in the middle or on the left like AmSpec, Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, Palin, etc., the leaders of the right today. There is a huge difference in tone. You can't convince people when you berate most of them.
And I understand you are not an economist and don't understand macroeconomics. For your edification, I think you should look at comparative GDP, debt levels, and approval ratings over time for all modern Presidents. Here are some easy references:
http://www.data360.org/dsg.asp.....oup_Id=230
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
You'll see that Reagan was no more successful economically than other Presidents. Your use of facts that aren't inflation adjusted is quite telling. In addition, it took a full two years for the economy to turn around under Reagan and he had an approval rating of 38% in 1983. To think any Obama policies would have an effect on this last recession for at least two years is the argument of a political hack, not an economist.
Most of us who are trained in economics don't believe government action changes the economic cycle very much, either with Reagan or Obama. Tax cuts have led to huge increases in debt and Obama's stimulus package was relatively ineffective because GDP is a function of private enterprise, not government. It is ironic that the most "successful" President from a macro-economic perspective in recent times was Clinton. But then again, most of his growth was the dotcom bubble.
Ask yourself what would have occurred if Bush2 had ended his Presidency before the housing bubble burst? Would you have blamed Obama for the housing bubble? The answer, of course, is yes, you would have done that because you are not after the truth, you are after readership.
I find it disappointing that we don't find objective, factual arguments on the extreme right. Objectivity favors true fiscal conservatism and a reduction of spending. By going beyond this to a demonization of Obama and liberal policies, the rational argument gets buried.
Bob| 1.5.10 @ 8:34AM
And here is a link for spending....
http://www.heritage.org/Resear.....eased.html
Indiana Alex| 1.5.10 @ 8:54AM
"Bob",
What power does the President have to determine spending?
Didn't the left & mushy "Bob" middle pillory Reagan for cutting spending too much (ketchup as a vegitable and not enough funding for the arts?)
Didn't Clinton shut down the government because the Rights in congress wanted to cut spending too much for the left and mushy "Bob" middle to swallow?
Doesn't the Congress have the power of appropriations? Do you remember when Reagan wanted to shut down the governmetn because he didn't want to swallow what Congress was spending?
Education is truely lacking in this country.
Bob| 1.5.10 @ 9:06AM
Indiana, the President has the power of the veto. If he doesn't like the budget, veto it. The fact is that Reagan did not cut spending -- and that was his problem.
But the real truth here is that all politicians, including Reagan, "buy" their elections by pandering to certain constituencies. That's the real reason spending is not reduced. No politician will be reelected if they cut the spending to one of their large groups. Most of us believe that Medicare has grown too large. Some of you even believe that Medicare is unconstitutional. Do you really think you could get elected on a platform of cutting Medicare? Remember that entitlements are more than half of the federal budget.
Reagan had the bully pulpit and was an excellent communicator. Do I blame Congress? Absolutely. But I also blame all politicians including Reagan. And yes, Obama is making it even worse.
Those of you who give Reagan a break because of this notion that only Congress appropriates don't really understand the balance of power argument, do you????
Bob| 1.5.10 @ 9:10AM
One more comment, Alex. I am to the RIGHT of you on fiscal conservatism. I would cut much more than you out of the federal budget. To think I am part of the "mushy" middle shows that you seem to lack the ability to read. You think that because I am not a religious fanatic. You seem to confuse religious fanaticism with being in the middle.
Indiana Alex| 1.5.10 @ 9:22AM
I think you are to the left of me because you are a tax increase fanatic.
Bob| 1.5.10 @ 10:04AM
It is conservative to believe you should pay for what you spend. It is idiotic to believe you shouldn't.
Son Of Sam | 1.5.10 @ 11:57AM
We didn't agree to this spending, and we're not going to be tricked into whopping new tax increases to pay for it. The whole point of the ObamaNazi program is to bankrupt "we the people" with the crushing power of a Death Star sized government.
Go peddle your fakeass "conservative" values somewhere else, mole man.
stand strong until freedom dawns
Son Of Sam
http://www.samadamssos.bravehost.com/
Margie| 1.6.10 @ 4:03PM
"Bob" is an anti-God fanatic.
Alan Brooks| 1.5.10 @ 12:12PM
Bob,
these Harry Hairshirts are going to give us a Jeb Bush interregnum beginning Jan. of '17-- after Obama leaves office.
Please talk some sense into them. And forgive them; for they (being rightwing paranoids) know not what they do. They tried to fob Bob Dole and McCain on us and we have to RESPECT THEM??
You rubes deserve Obama and you KNOW IT. Democracy means we get what we Deserve.
Alan Brooks| 1.5.10 @ 12:15PM
Which old dork, which whited sepulchre, are these post- Cold War political masochists going to run for potus in '16?
Father Time himself?
Alan Brooks| 1.5.10 @ 12:27PM
We'll be lucky if Jeb is the GOP potus candidate in '16, and not a guy with one hind paw in the grave,
never underestimate the ability of a Repuglican to shoot himself in the foot.
And don't be angry, you guys like to slog it out; you don't want a mutual admiration club at AS blogs, do you? besides you ARE in fact masochists, and you do indeed KNOW IT.
Sam| 1.6.10 @ 12:45PM
Alan, you and Bob are right. How bout you both co-found a political website that talks frankly about real conservative politics, or at least direct me to one.
I grow tired of these right-wingers who have no interest in real debate and would prefer to bash everything to the left of their position in their own personal echo chamber.
Nobama| 1.7.10 @ 12:32AM
Sam, go back to your HuffPo echo chamber--lots of solemn debate there. Yuck Yuck!!
No one invited you; leave any time.
Patriot| 1.5.10 @ 6:52PM
You're an idiot if you think Conservatives wanted Dole or McCain. They're both RINOs, fool!
Margie| 1.6.10 @ 1:41PM
That's right. In our state we were rooting for Fred Thompson but he for some reason didn't seem fully into it (to me) I thought maybe his health.. I like him so much, but then wahat happened in NJ, and in some other states is that Democrats are allowed to vote in the Republican Primaries (they're called open Primaries) and because of them McCain became the nominee. That is the only reason we voted for him. Well, that and Sarah Palin.
So the lesson from this, for me.. is to always seek to vote in local elections, and in all Primaries for the conservative Repubs... so they have a much better chance.
~I also want to find out about changing that stupid law about open Primaries.. why should DEMOCRATS be allowed to vote in OUR Primaries?!
explosion proof flood light | 11.25.10 @ 1:32AM
That's the way it went in the U.S. for decades. People in poor communities were convinced that the police and justice system didn't give a hang about crime in their neighborhoods.
Jeffrey Lord| 1.5.10 @ 9:23AM
Bob..
"Tax cuts have led to huge increases in debt "..
No, Bob, spending leads to huge increases in debt...
Again...you voted for Obama...you are not for fiscal discipline on the face of it. If you were to the right on fiscal conservatism you would never have voted for Obama...period.
Truth to Power| 1.5.10 @ 9:48AM
Obama does not present a surprise to anybody that was awake. He advocated huge spending before he went into office and his short time in the Senate was characterized by extreme liberalism. There are a bunch of dimwits (3/5 Bob claims to be one) that imprinted on him their own views. They foolishly voted for him. Now we hear the familiar refrain that all politicians are alike. The inability to make distinctions is a sign of a severe dimwit or a leading intellectual at an Ivy League school. Our trolls seem to have a common New Year's resolution. I wish they just would have given up being foolish and ignorant.
Bob| 1.5.10 @ 10:03AM
No, Jeffrey, it is a combination of spending and revenues that cause debt. Debt is simply what is left over when EITHER you spend too much or you don't take in enough revenue or a combination of both. It is naive to believe otherwise.
Yes, I voted for Obama because I don't believe there is any difference on the spending front between the two parties. Here is a graph of federal spending over the last 50 years or so. Please show me how Republicans have differed from Democrats on this graph:
http://www.heritage.org/Resear.....eased.html
I really don't care about the rhetoric. I care about results.
Jeffrey Lord| 1.5.10 @ 10:18AM
Bob...
You are right about the GOP lately...and...my friend...the rhetoric is very important to keep GOP members from doing exactly what they did on the spending front. They tried to be Democrat-lite on the premise that "moderation" would buy them votes. From Dewey to McCain this has never worked. Rhetoric is a serious part of politics when done correctly - it keeps people honest. And when they aren't - they lose, as well they should. But make no mistake, McCain, for all his faults, had a serious record as an anti-pork guy. Which is why his unpopularity with colleagues. You chose someone who had zero intention of cutting spending - and stuck to his promise. On that front Obama gets an "A+".
And by the way, lower taxes increase revenue. Combined with spending cuts one balances the budget...as in the Gingrich accomplishment.
http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/wm327.cfm
Bob| 1.5.10 @ 10:30AM
Jeffrey, I've read the Mitchell article before and can find no graphical inflation adjusted data to back up his contention. In point of fact, Heritage's own graphs refute Mitchell's point.
I would also look into the balancing of the budget under Clinton/Gingrich. This had little to do with either of them. The timing of the dotcom bubble increased federal revenues -- and that is not real growth (i.e., GDP). The economy also looked good for Bush2 until the housing bubble burst.
Again, you cannot find actual macroeconomic data to back up your contention that lower taxes increases revenue. Articles by political hacks are not data oriented proofs -- on either side. And by the way, even the Heritage Foundation goes back to Kennedy to make this point -- the data does not support any change under Reagan.
If you find any economist that has the graphical, inflation adjusted macroeconomic data to support your contention, please email me the data at factual.conservative@gmail.com.
Thanks....
Dai Alanye | 1.5.10 @ 3:24PM
Clinton's original policies were quite similar to Obama's… and failed miserably. They brought about the election of the '94 Congress, and it was that conservative Republican Congress which—ironically enough—reined-in Clinton and thereby saved his presidency.
But Slick Willy was capable of learning, and his popularity was more important to him than his principles, such as they were. Surrendering to reality, he moved to the center and hired Trickie Dickie Morris to advise him. "Triangulation" effectively meant taking Republican issues and personalizing them, then claiming them for his own.
Will Obama learn, and is he willing to greatly modify his leftist policies? Or is he a captive of Chicago corruption and his own past radicalism? More to the point, perhaps, what will Michelle demand he do?
If he significantly changes, and rids himself of some of the leftist deadheads presently surrounding him, he might be able to save himself from voter wrath. The bus is waiting, ready for BO to throw Rahm and David and Valerie and Eric under it, just as he has thrown so many others once they proved inconvenient. He'll lose the loonie left but the government-loving propaganda media will come back to support him, and dunderheads like Bob will once again proclaim him The Smartest President Ever.
SoCon| 1.5.10 @ 5:42PM
Bob, the proud "RINO" who voted for the wealth redistributionist Progressive, pro-infanticide Obama, is once again wagging his finger and lecturing us on what constitutes a true Republican.
Bob, as your favorite Republican says, "Thanks, but no thanks."
Howard| 1.5.10 @ 9:07AM
I loved The Gipper as much as anyone. However, this article is somewhat misleading. Reagan had a philosophy/strategy of small government, more individual freedom. His tactics were not always true to his philosophy. The deficit did increase during his years. The purpose. i.e. to defeat the Soviet Union was phenomenal. However, the deficits did occur. Reagan also was a much more cheerful person than many of the current GOP scolds.
Obama is an empty suit. He is very bright and articulate. But, I think he is a sponge absorbing whatever philosophy (usually leftist) that catches his attention. I do not think he is a Socialist, but, I also do not believe that he defends capitalism enough. He seems to think government works better than markets. Ultimately, this will be his downfall.
Bob| 1.5.10 @ 9:18AM
Howard -- kudos on your comment. Here is an article by one of Reagan's senior economists backing up what you say:
http://www.econlib.org/library.....omics.html
SoCon| 1.5.10 @ 5:47PM
Bob, are you also as fond of the comment that "Obama is an empty suit?" Just wonderin'.
Son Of Sam | 1.5.10 @ 12:01PM
Revenues to the Treasury INCREASED during the Reagan years; its a fact and you can look it up. The reason we had deficits is because the Dems in Congress took all that money and then spent a whopping amount more than that. And it wasn't on defense: as a PERCENTAGE of the total budget, defense spending barely moved, and was in fact, about half what JFK spent in percentage terms
stand strong until freedom dawns
Son Of Sam
http://www.samadamssos.bravehost.com/
Margie| 1.5.10 @ 3:32PM
Obama is bright alright. The Devil himself disguises himself as an angel of light.
It's called deceit. And Obummer does it well. ..Except for one thing. People are waking up to the deceit and they're not liking it.
Him and his fascist policies of destroying the American Dream aren't working very well for us. For him and his minions, yes. But not for the people.
Vote the bums out!
racking | 1.5.10 @ 9:36AM
http://www.racking-shelving.com
http://www.cold-store-equipment.com
as a whole contractor for cold store equipment, design, manufacturing, installation.
professional racking & shelving manufacturer, pallet racking, drive in racking,
cantilever racking, longspan shelving, dexion racking,
Ken (Old Texican)| 1.5.10 @ 9:54AM
Mr. Lord,
Splendid article. You nailed it.
Our resident history destructor will have his say of course, but he is a liar...on purpose.
Our country of course is in an entirely different "place" today than at the end of Carter's Presidency.
I often said of Carter: "I would be delighted to have Mr. Carter as my son's Sunday school teacher, but he is just not tough enough to face the Soviet Union, and...his circle of advisors are totally incompetent."
At the time, I don't think many Americans thought of Mr. Carter as "anti-American". My goodness, he had Captained a nuke sub "up north where the war is going on." He was considered, at worst, misguided and ill advised. Thus he dithered with details instead of confronting our national problems head-on. (The Soviet high-water mark, and the energy crunches.)
I personally had never been so frightened for our country to the date Carter left office. I honestly felt there was a one in four chance that the Soviets would roll the dice. (Remember "Red Storm Rising"?)
As CEO of an international energy development company, I was in a position to see the Soviet Union first hand reaching the end of their rope...and desperate. Heck, we Americans had to build their trans-Siberian pipeline for them to keep them from freezing in the dark.
No.
Most of us considered Mr. Carter a "patriot"...if a too soft one.
Mr. Reagan stepped in at a specific moment in our history, and would address the burning issues of THAT time.
Today, we have a very different set of "burning issues".
In short, Mr. Obama seems to want to "bury us" as the Russians boasted they would.
His entire life growing up, he was on the "outside looking in"...and angry. I read an article the other day about his childhood creating his world-view and existential antagonism toward everything "American". (chills provoking)
That article is perfectly consistent with the motivation of everything he has done since entering office.
So,
Yes Sir Mr. Lord. But these days we Americans have had war declared on our economy...and our constitution ... by our own President... in his own words.
In my heart of hearts, November 2010 will be THE deciding battle in this cold war.
Ken (Old Texican)| 1.5.10 @ 10:06AM
Here is a link to the article I related above.
"The Red Avenger"
http://www.americanthinker.com.....enger.html
Margie| 1.5.10 @ 3:37PM
A most excellent post. Truthful and spoken like the true gentleman.
Bravo!
Jack | 1.5.10 @ 10:08AM
Ken,
You are correct in your views of the differences in these 2 men.
The first would have done anything to protect and defend our nation and constitution.
The second will do anything possible, as fast as possible, to tear it apart.
A scary thought that he who guides our nation grew up hating it.
Pingback| 1.5.10 @ 10:23AM
Twitter Trackbacks for The American Spectator : The War of the Presidents: Reagan Ba links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Bob| 1.5.10 @ 10:39AM
Jeffrey, I've read the Mitchell article before and can find no graphical inflation adjusted data to back up his contention. In point of fact, Heritage's own graphs refute Mitchell's point.
I would also look into the balancing of the budget under Clinton/Gingrich. This had little to do with either of them. The timing of the dotcom bubble increased federal revenues -- and that is not real growth (i.e., GDP). The economy also looked good for Bush2 until the housing bubble burst.
Again, you cannot find actual macroeconomic data to back up your contention that lower taxes increases revenue. Articles by political hacks are not data oriented proofs -- on either side. And by the way, even the Heritage Foundation goes back to Kennedy to make this point -- the data does not support any change under Reagan.
If you find any economist that has the graphical, inflation adjusted macroeconomic data to support your contention, please email me the data at factual.conservative@gmail.com.
Thanks....
Bob| 1.5.10 @ 10:45AM
By the way, Jeffrey, any "political economist" or mathematician can use the trick of using selected data periods to "prove" a point. The way you get around this statistical "trick" is to look at the graphical data over a longer period of time. For example, if we had looked at the Clinton/Gingrich period from 1994 to 2002, rather than 1992 to 2000 your conclusions would have been quite different. And if you really do understand legislation, you'd know that the impact of economic legislation does not begin to occur for a period of at least 2 years.
Jeffrey Lord| 1.5.10 @ 4:25PM
Bob..
"And if you really do understand legislation, you'd know that the impact of economic legislation does not begin to occur for a period of at least 2 years. "
I do..and dated the Reagan recovery accurately, from November of 1982.
But I don't need to wait a year from now to know that jumping off the top of the Washington Monument will kill the jumper...the results are certain. Obamanomics has never succeeded anywhere - ever. It is not rocket science to know this will fail....
John II| 1.5.10 @ 10:27PM
Hi Bob. Long time no rant. But I need to advise you of a point about language and usage. The term "data" is a neuter nominative/accusative PLURAL of the term "datum." When you say "data is" rather than "data are," you're not merely thumbing your nose at stuffy language mavens; you're prejudging the issue with the fallacy of petitio principii--i.e., begging the question.
For example, to say "the data suggests that . . ." prejudges your point with the assumption that the data alluded to are univocal and thus allow no alternative interpretation. Most scientists are sensitive to this issue of language and are careful to preserve the plural number of "data." Some aren't, however, including those who promote the scam of global warming.
Margie| 1.6.10 @ 12:52AM
John II! You're back. I wish I had your mental capacity. Of course, I mean that in a good way. And I know just by me saying that I am inviting the merry trolls to make a comment about that but eh!
I'm off to slumber land but just happened to see your name.
Nighty night!
p.s. Bob has been a very, very bad boy these past few days.
Louis Jenkins| 1.5.10 @ 11:15AM
Argue data, the economy, deficits, etc. Here are some quotes from Reagan that still ring true this day and age. Sure beats "Hope and Change." Then decide if you'd rather listen to Obama, and who makes you proud to be an American.
How do you tell a communist? Well, it’s someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-communist? It’s someone who understands Marx and Lenin.
Televised Nationwide Address on Behalf of Senator Barry Goldwater, 10/27/64
And Senator Clark of Pennsylvania, another articulate spokesman, defines liberalism as "meeting the material needs of the masses through the full power of centralized government." Well, I for one resent it when a representative of the people refers to you and me - the free men and women of this country - as "the masses." This is a term we haven't applied to ourselves in America. But beyond that, "the full power of centralized government" - this was the very thing the Founding Fathers sought to minimize. They knew that governments don't control things. A government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they knew when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. They also knew, those Founding Fathers, that outside of its legitimate functions, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy.
1981 Inaugural Address
Idle industries have cast workers into unemployment, human misery, and personal indignity. Those who do work are denied a fair return for their labor by a tax system which penalizes successful achievement and keeps us from maintaining full productivity.
But great as our tax burden is, it has not kept pace with public spending. For decades we have piled deficit upon deficit, mortgaging our future and our children's future for the temporary convenience of the present. To continue this long trend is to guarantee tremendous social, cultural, political, and economic upheavals.
You and I, as individuals, can, by borrowing, live beyond our means, but for only a limited period of time. Why, then, should we think that collectively, as a nation, we're not bound by that same limitation? We must act today in order to preserve tomorrow. And let there be no misunderstanding: We are going to begin to act, beginning today.
1989 Farwell Address
If we forget what we did, we won't know who we are. I'm warning of an eradication of the American memory that could result, ultimately, in an erosion of the American spirit. Let's start with some basics: more attention to American history and a greater emphasis on civic ritual. And let me offer lesson number one about America: All great change in America begins at the dinner table. So, tomorrow night in the kitchen I hope the talking begins. And children, if your parents haven't been teaching you what it means to be an American, let 'em know and nail 'em on it. That would be a very American thing to do.
Northern Rebel| 1.5.10 @ 11:37AM
If Alan Brooks is a conservative, than I'm Michael Jordan! Do you think we are idiots, sir? Did you change names again?
There will never be another Reagan, but I'd love to see a George Allen - Rik Santorum ticket.
George could be turning our country in the correct direction, while his brother turns around the Redskins!
Howard:
Tax revenues acheived record highs, after Reagan's tax cuts were enacted. It was a democrat congress that refused to cut spending, and inflated the deficit.
Nice try old boy.
Bob| 1.5.10 @ 12:51PM
Hey, North Guy.... Here is a chart of federal revenues over time:
http://www.heritage.org/resear.....-1965.aspx
Please show me how the increases under Reagan were significantly greater than any other President. In fact, revenues increased at a greater rate under the tax INCREASES of Clinton. I think you are factually deficient....
SoCon| 1.5.10 @ 6:26PM
Oh, no--not the dreaded charts; it's only a matter of time before Bob's graphs rear their ugly head, too.
Take cover!
SoCon| 1.5.10 @ 6:28PM
Bob, if you call Northern Rebel North guy--can I call you Old Guy?
The Other Bob| 1.5.10 @ 6:45PM
Ah, Bob...we've had this discussion before. If you're trained in economics, you should sue the diploma mill that "awarded" you that credential, for non-performance.
To recap: Federal revenues from INCOME TAXES increased by OVER 100% during the years 1981 - 1989. AFTER the 30% cuts in tax rates, and the lowering of corporate taxes from ~ 50% to a high of 28% in 1986. You will recall (actually, YOU won't, but those of us who are lucid will) that "professionally trained economists" predicted that these tax cuts would lead to increased deficits DUE TO REVENUE LOSS. As President Reagan said, 'This Halloween, I'm going to smear some egg on my face and go as a liberal economist.'
And please don't try your old tired canard about the revenue increase being due to inflation. One of the key points of the Reagan tax bill was to INDEX income taxes for inflation, which the Obamanauts are (steathily) trying to repeal.
Knucklehead.
Bob| 1.5.10 @ 12:53PM
One more point, Northboy... tax revenues achieve "record highs" under ALL Presidents. You are really funny....
Jack | 1.5.10 @ 3:47PM
One more point? It seems as if your only point is to argue with conservatives on the AS site. We all really appreciate your points. Edified?
Northern Rebel| 1.5.10 @ 11:44AM
Bob:
You are a liberal, tax hiking socialist.
The only progam you would cut, would be the military, which defends your right to lie, and say foolish things.
Oldefarte| 1.5.10 @ 1:04PM
WORDS are inspirational and lovely to hear, but mean very little [especially when those words are PURE FICTION/LIES]. This President effectively BRAINWASHED the american people with his words, since they were a false description of his true self. The future elections are not so much about personalities or persons; as they are about the entire future of this country. We now have a President who TROJUN-HORSED himself into the Oval Office, and if the American voters of each and every party and dogma do not WAKE UP and see him for who/what he is, there will be no more America fairly soon. One TV political commentator lamented upon how important 2010's elections are--------hell, they're not important, they're CRITICAL!!!!!
Indiana Alex| 1.5.10 @ 1:41PM
One wonders why "Bob" and jharp aren't writing about the recent President that should be their favorite, GHW Bush.
He raised taxes, just as Clinton did, for the same reason. To lower the deficit.
Of course the economic results were not good.
Clinton's and Bush's team suggested that lowering the deficit would lead to lower interest rates and thus more growth.
How would that theory play out now?
Perhaps there is more involved?
It must be nice to be an eclectic intellectual. You can believe just about anything, provide data to prove it, and you can "take your beliefs to be axiomatic truths rathern than hypotheses to be tested".
I borrowed the last quote from an actual Economist, who was on Reagan's Counsil, and who would decidedly disagree with "Bob".
His name is Thomas Sowell.
SoCon| 1.5.10 @ 6:36PM
Oh, geez, don't bring up that troll, JHarp--that guy was nasty. JHarp and Interloper were both mean; Dave Matthews, too. Ugh!
Pingback| 1.5.10 @ 2:02PM
The American Spectator : The War of the Presidents: Reagan Battles … American Me links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Northern Rebel| 1.5.10 @ 3:21PM
You cannot lower the deficit by cutting taxes, or raising taxes, as long as congress continues to act like the american people's money is their personal piggy bank.
We grew ourselves out of yearly deficits in the late '90's, and now democrats are trying to prevent this from happening again, by installing cap and tax, and the health care crackdown on personal freedom.
They don't want money in the citizen's hands, they want to dictate our behavior by controlling our purse strings.
That is why even though they know cutting taxes will increase gov't revenue, they would sttle for less, in order to keep it out of our hands.
It's not about the money, it's about control, just like any other facsist state.
Liberal Reader| 1.5.10 @ 4:07PM
"Rebel" --
If you were a little more independent minded, you'd be able to see through the disc jockey hysterics who claim Obama is a "fascist." Nothing could be further from the truth. Obama is to the Democratic Party (you know, the party that led the country through WWI and WWII) what Reagan is to the Republican.
The people who actually are interested in controlling you are delighted, however, that you've seen fit to displace blame onto the party that stands up for your economic and political interests. But a few of us are impatient with rhetoric like yours, and kindly ask you to fuck off.
Thom| 1.5.10 @ 5:23PM
LR, you spend way too much time worrying about academic nitwit arguments over “labels”. If you are a Communist, Socialist, Fascist, Liberal, Progressive, Islamist, Samurai warrior from Imperial Japan, one of Idi Amin best buddies, Union thug or Joe Sixpack and you become a threat to this Constitutional Republic and a personal threat to me and mine it really isn’t going to matter what you are called or what you call yourself is it? You are a shining example of identity politics and where that leads.
Before you cast off labels like “fascist” for your good buddy King Obama you might first understand what Fascism is and take a real close look at Italy pre WWII. There are far more things in common between Marx’s ideals (in actual practice) than differences with Fascism and just for the record that Democrat Party you are so proud of for leading us “into” WWI and caught napping for the last battle of what that started on Dec 7th, 1941, was and still is the leading proponent of slavery and racism in this nation then and today. Your Party has a long and proud history of embracing any form of servitude that buys them power and will drop the “race” card at every turn to keep its modern day slaves agitated and on the plantation of eternal dependence on that proud Party of yours. I believe the jury is in on that great leader of WWI that is known to be a pretty solid racist.
You worry about “labels” and if they meet your academic standards and I’ll worry about the encroaching evil that is your Party of choice.
Margie| 1.5.10 @ 8:03PM
I ask you folks~~ can we get any better than this?
Thom,
What a great post. Please don't disappear from this site, we need you.
Thank you for taking the time to lambaste and lampoon LR, as he/she sorely needs it. Of course I doubt it will have any effect but hey, you never know. One can always turn. Just look at Saul (Paul). The worst became the best.
Thom| 1.5.10 @ 8:29PM
Margie, thanks for the kind words but all I really did is bring a mirror into the Great Hall of King Liberal. Liberalism is a disease of the mind and its foundation is a very great lie. People who live a lie typically can’t stop and it eventually destroys them. People who make ridicules claims that Liberalism’s root goals aren’t the same as fill in the blank collectives (Communism, Socialism, Fascism, etc) can’t handle the truth about their root motivations for being charter members of that club. All collectives eventually become authoritarian and react to resistance to their control with force which is a pretty word for violence. The central tenets of our Constitutional structure were to resist centralized control mechanisms and prevent essentially MOB rule masquerading as legit government. We’ve seen Might makes Right employed to change the Constitution by force (there’s that pretty word again) and that cost us a pretty amount of souls and ultimately respect for the central protections of the Constitution. King Obama himself has pinned his disgust for said documents for not allowing the “government” the power to redistribute wealth (to paraphrase). Both Fascism and Marx preached redistribution of wealth and ownership by the “State”. If the “State” owns (or controls) the outcome of your efforts or a large enough portion of it they essentially own you. Our pet LR’s juvenile mindset (without regard to biological age) is revealed promptly when he/she/it resorts to profanity to end what he/she/it thinks is a profound statement by them. People in love with the lie that is their image of who/what they think they are aren’t fond of mirrors in their face even though they hunger to see their image reflected everywhere……
Liberal Reader| 1.5.10 @ 9:01PM
Thom --
What you call "labels" are better simply called WORDS. Words have definitions. A fascist government is very different from a communist government. A democratic republic is very different from a fascist or communist form of government.
The weakness is fringe right wing arguments forces its denizens to attempt to seize the limelight by making outrageous, inflammatory accusations and claims.
Only an idiot or deluded mental patient would seriously argue that we live in a fascist or any kind of totalitarian state.
It reminds me of some fat little boy sniveling that he's "starving" because he missed his afternoon Twinkie. It's disgusting and contemptible for people like you to enjoy the freedoms and immense wealth of this country while at the same time claiming to live in a fascist dictatorship.
Nothing is more inimical to a free society than the toxic debasement of political discourse represented by that kind of talk. A free society DEPENDS upon serious, rational, sober criticism of the government. When people like you turn it into a national joke, it endangers the cause of dissent.
Your assumption that only people who share your political beliefs are patriotic is itself completely un-American. You simply don't understand the ideals of the country you claim to love. You probably give all kinds of lip-service to ideas like "American exceptionalism," but you seem to have no clue as to what truly makes us exceptional.
Thom| 1.5.10 @ 9:21PM
Comrade LR, you got one thing right. Words mean things but liars conveniently demand that their words only mean what they say they mean. You make my point for me.
I never said we live in a totalitarian state, you make up things to fit what you don’t understand I said. Was pre war Italy a totalitarian state there Comrade LR? The answer to that would probably depend on if you were the OX or the one getting the benefit of that OX provided by the STATE as someone else’s expense. Words do indeed mean things Comrade but the net output of Marx’s various flavors of guilt driven egalitarianism is massive destruction of the fabric of societies far and wide. The net difference between Fascism (light as Italy had and heavy as the Nazis had) and Marx’s vision is the number of Princes and Princesses it allowed. The Serfs suffer along the same lines eventually.
Liberal Reader| 1.5.10 @ 11:33PM
Thom --
Did you at any point sit in a classroom in which civics or 20th century European and American history was taught?
You don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about. All I can make out is a disjointed and fragmented convocation of tags and patches you've clearly picked up on the radio and internet.
SoCon| 1.5.10 @ 11:47PM
It makes you look like a loser when you insist on defending a failed president, Lib Reader.
Fascist Twinkie.
Margie| 1.6.10 @ 1:09PM
Stainless Steel LibRead. Dear person,
you're heart must be like steel.. to have the kind of reactions that you do to truth when it is spoken. Don't you understand, or see at all.. that it counts not how high the academia of a person, but what they say. You always attack the messenger.. but more seriously and much more importantly, you do seem to reject the truth altogether. It is truly sad LR. I say this with no sarcasm at all and in all sincerity.
SoCon| 1.6.10 @ 2:26PM
I don't think he has a heart, Margie.
victor| 1.6.10 @ 11:53PM
Hairy Reider avers:
"A fascist government is very different from a communist government."
Five or so quick un-differences between the two:
Both methods deny any individual rights
Both are ruled by dictators who only allow their own political party.
Both have rulers that have full run of their respective governments.
Propaganda is an important tool used by both Fascists and Communists.
They both use brutal intimidation of the opposition by the militia and the secret police.
They both denied individual rights and insisted on the supremacy of the state.
They both employ secret police, censorship, and propaganda methods to control the population.
Not that different, are they.
SoCon| 1.5.10 @ 6:44PM
Wow, Liberal Reader! Why does the word 'Fascist' pinch your panties so? Truth hurts?
I'll be glad to call you a Marxist or a Communist if it makes you feel better.
Just tryin' to help out.
Margie| 1.5.10 @ 4:15PM
Northern rebel~
Your post was so truthful and excellent that it angered and brought out Leviathan! (Lib Read).
TennesseeVolunteer| 1.5.10 @ 4:54PM
November 2010 will be our Independence Day. Everyday I talk to people that know in their heart that America is on the wrong path. They did not attend the last Tea Parties but will be at the next ones. The Patriots of America have chosen to use the ballot box in 2010 as their Tea Party as in keeping with our constitution and our history. If the Liberal lepers of the Left even try to suborn this election using ACORN or all of the stimulus money or illegal immigrants, you will see a Tsunami of Terrible Proportions put this country back into its rightful place.
Bob, Alan, Liberal..you can talk all you want. You know so much more than us poor unwashed in flyover country but we know one thing that you don't. This is our country too and we aren't handing it over to a bunch of community activists who have never thrown a paper, never made a payroll, never lost sleep over how to make the company payroll or bank note.
We are a nation of ordinary, common people who learned our lessons from our Grandparents, the nuns in school and the school of hard knocks. Your high brow, supposed facts mean nothing to us. We've milked cows at 4 AM, we've coached little league teams, payed off our school loans and have raised families, communities and Churches. Your east coast arrogance doesn't play here.
November 2010...you just watch. That will be our Independence Day.
Margie| 1.5.10 @ 5:03PM
I think I love you, Tenn.
SoCon| 1.5.10 @ 6:39PM
Save the Date
November 2, 2010
National Pink Slip Day for Democrats
Fire them all!!
Deborah D.| 1.6.10 @ 3:24PM
Wow!! Love the passion, Tennessee...that's exactly what the country needs. And, normal Americans are paying attention. We will keep our country.
I'm with Margie, I think I love you!!
Ken (Old Texican)| 1.5.10 @ 5:29PM
Hey Margie, can I love him too? heh
Thank you for your kind words above. I love you two...er too. *
Margie| 1.5.10 @ 6:07PM
Yes you can, Ken~ even the Liberals would be proud. You can just feel the love.... we're spreading the love!
TennesseeVolunteer| 1.5.10 @ 5:36PM
Thanks, Margie. I have admired your postings at AS. We all know it is time to stand up. We all know that this has gone too darn far. We all know that America was founded by, and for, people like us.
My Mom and Dad both came up through the Depression with single Mothers. My Mom and Dad, killed themselves to provide a Catholic grade school and high school education for five out of six of our kids. I'll be damned if I am going to dishonor their memories by not fighting for what all of us know is right. (Excepting Bob, Alan and Liberal)
All of my life I have been blessed with an easy road, a great wife, great sons and more friends than any man has a right to claim. You and I know that we have even more friends on this site who think like the both of us.
But I am mad, real mad...and I have taken all I am going to take from liberal elitists who think they know whats better for me than I do. There is nothing they can tell me that will convince me that they know more than we do, or that they even care for the least of our brothers.
November 2010...Independence Day...God bless.
Margie| 1.5.10 @ 6:04PM
Well Tenn, all I got to say is: If all of us are as mad as you are, we should be able to take the 2010 elections by storm.. and if we continue, in 2012. (By the Grace and mercy of God).
There are so many conservatives out there who are running on the Republican ticket and we all need to find out who they are and support them. We took NJ by storm.. that was unbelievable! And VA, and almost NY.
What an encouragement you all are! Dittos dittos and more dittos!
Margie| 1.5.10 @ 6:11PM
Tenn. p.s. I love your story. God bless you and your Family. Your Parents and Grand Parents made you what you are~ which is a Great American.
Thom| 1.5.10 @ 6:42PM
Margie,
For 2010 to have any lasting impact there must be leadership that is sorely lacking at the moment in the Republican Party. With core conservatives letting those without and within define them, what they stand for, slice and dice the movement into fractional single issue parts and having the mother ship for the movement (The Republican Party) waste a million dollars of hard earned money supporting a liberal/progressive/etc Democrat in NYS 23 calling themselves a “Republican” who then withdrew and supported the Democrat candidate along with 6% of the voters (Bob’s relatives) voting for a person who had officially withdrawn, the leadership issue isn’t going away. It does take money and lots of it to overcome the landslide of bias and media control the Democrat Party has over its special interest driven single issue voter base. The RNC and alike are hurting now because even their supporters don’t trust their judgment with their contributions. A solid leader is required, not a manager and one that can rally both voters and USD.
In addition, nothing short of a veto proof Congress is going to repeal anything passed by King Obama and his horde of taxpayer fund loving Orcs. No statistical chance of that happening even by 2012. The best 2010 can bring is stalemate and that will not do in the long run. We have some really serious problems now but more bad news is coming down that track real soon and it isn’t going to get better with halfway measures that typically come out of division of government. My point here is not to burst your bubble but it isn’t a miracle we need but enough principled voters to stay a course of action that prevails over time. That requires real leadership in it for the long haul. Republican pragmatism helped a lot in getting us to where we are today. To paraphrase someone I can’t give credit to, “the real problem with Conservatives is they let the “facts” do the talking…….” Some can’t take a dump without consulting a government chart…. Leadership and passion tend to count more than the facts to win elections in a Democracy. Reagan was successful because he had some measure of both but he wasn’t willing to change what had come before and that is going to pile on to what is going to kill this Nation in short order if a reverse course is not chosen pretty soon in political terms. Principle less or opportunists as we so often hear preaching the wisdom that only a deep pocket’s Harvard indoctrination course of study can provide may run from King Obama in 2010 in keeping with their beliefs that they are the true guiding light in this Nation and King Makers but by next election the same group of emotional or shallow thinkers will forget what caused them to run in the first place. Every time I see the latest polls I have to wonder just what were these people smoking when they entered the voting booths?
We need solid leadership and the required support for that to make a real and lasting difference. I see “iceberg right ahead” is we don’t find that leadership. Just my two cents.
SoCon| 1.5.10 @ 7:13PM
Thom why don't we just start our own country? My blood pressure would sure be much lower.
Heck, you can be president!
Thom| 1.5.10 @ 7:26PM
SoCon when was the last time someone could start their own country without paying a terrible price for that? I am of the belief that the streets are going to run red, perhaps in what is left of my life if this slide into the Abyss is not reversed. I'm also of the considered opinion that there is a point of no return historically speaking. American have proven that they can overcome some pretty significant burdens and challenges but there are a lot fewer Americans left than there was say 20-30 years ago. Far too many people call themselves “Americans” without having a clue that being an American is a philosophy for life not a birth right like being a US citizen. US citizenship doesn’t even mean what it used to be now. There are far too many people in this Nation today calling themselves Americans who aren’t.
Angel| 1.5.10 @ 9:45PM
Hi, Thom!
Your post is sobering and I agree with most of it, but because of my son, I don't feel as bleak about our country's future as I once did.
Several of my son's boyhood friends are marines due to ship out to Afghanistan later this month. I've know some of them since they were toddlers in diapers; little hell-raisers, all
Last weekend, their parents threw a huge block party for their young warriors -- they were treated like kings. They were so much fun, so full of life, Thom!
They had to be afraid but they never showed it; they laughed and cracked jokes the whole night. Their loud laughter was infectious.
Their mothers were a different story, though; I could see the fear in their eyes and my heart broke for them.
I love them all so much. They are my friends and my neighbors; they are ordinary Americans like me.
What kind of a country produces such beautiful and brave warriors? OUR beloved country produces these warriors; they're so young, yet they're willing to sacrifice everything.
That night changed me, I felt emboldened. I figured if these stalwart young Americans loved our country enough to fight for her, then certainly, I could do no less. Regardless of cost.
I still think we've got it, Thom, I think we can do it. We can still take our country back if we reaffirm our faith in God and work together to restore the goodness of our great nation.
All I know is I have to, I have to at least try--for them. And I am not afraid.
Margie| 1.5.10 @ 8:28PM
Thom,
I had to read your post a few times to get the gist of what you're trying to say.. I felt like maybe I am too much of a cheer leader while reading it but hope springs eternal you know.
I know exactly what you're saying and that is that things are truly dismal when you look at the big picture. What is hopeful though is that because of this fascist President people are waking up to reality and aren't liking it. The only thing we can do is work hard and elect conservative Republicans and it is happening all over the country (starting to). The big guys (elites, Rockefeller Repubs) are feeling it and I hope they just go away, but of course they won't so we have to kick them out!
As for a leader.. I know what you mean... Sarah Palin? Anyone Sarah Palin backs?
Anyone else have anything to say to Thom's post? Old Tex.. what do you think?
All is not lost Thom. The King of Kings will be returning and as the Bible says "The government shall be upon His shoulders." In the meantime we should pray, and work and never ever give up.
Thom| 1.5.10 @ 9:09PM
Margie,
"never ever give up" . Freedom isn't free Margie nor is it the outcome of an academic debate class. Your neighbor can become your blood enemy simply by believing that they are entitled to some of your “income” or “property” because you have more than they….. The year 1913 looms large in the enabling mechanism that is eating this Nation alive. In that year, the central Constitutional property right protections were abolished…..and a growing portion of this Nation's population has surrendered to the sweat smell of easy money from that day forward. We’ve institutionalized what is killing us….
Angel| 1.5.10 @ 9:48PM
Thom, there's greatness in our kids, I've seen it.
The task is daunting but I still think we can prevail.
Siegfried X| 1.6.10 @ 1:01PM
Ronald Reagan knew that before he could defeat the Democrats, he needed to defeat the liberal Republicans in order to take charge of the party. That is what is missing in today's conservatism. Too many conservatives give money to ANY Republican, and vote for any Republican, often without paying attention to the primaries. The only thing our media talk about again, and again, is Democrats and the left wing.
Things have improved slightly since the election, like with tea parties and Specter being forced out. Only time will tell if it continues. Lead or be led (by the RINOs).
Margie| 1.6.10 @ 1:24PM
Excellent point there, about how people tend to ignore the Primaries. We need to make sure we vote always in all elections, like the ones coming up this year. Right?
Get involved locally, find out who the conservatives are in the party now and vote for them! ALL elections must have our involvement.. that's how I see it... just my duty as an American, because I'm thankful to God for my country.
martha| 1.5.10 @ 8:47PM
Tenn,
Do'nt write off the East Coast so fast, I'm a Noo Yawker and I'm with you. I've paid my own way since I'm 20. Which was longer ago than I'm going to say on this board.
I no longer speak to my sister because of this as she is an uber uber liberal who feels it's quite alright to say anything she wants but folds like the little coward she is when I call her on it. I've never milked a cow but I've slung more hash and bussed more tables than I care to remember.
At the April 15 Tea Party we had about 2500 Noo Yawkers show up and there are branches all over the place. Do'nt count out the East Coast so fast. I know plenty of people who did not drink the Kool-Aid and ca'nt wait to vote him out.
Angel| 1.5.10 @ 9:57PM
Martha, we may live on opposite sides of the country, but I feel like you're my next door neighbor. A couple of my sisters are snotty liberals; they don't mess with me, though. lol
There are lots of Americans all over the country who are plenty pithed off (as Old Texican puts it).
Margie| 1.6.10 @ 2:07PM
Martha & Angel,
It's so good to know I'm not alone. My Sis too and I no longer speak. And my whole family are Democrats. They treat me like I'm from another planet. I stand strong though and refuse to give way. I figure if they don't want the truth, they don't want me, can't have me.
martha, I was born in Schenectady NY, still love it up there. Now in NJ ~ and you're right.. don't anyone give up on us East Coasters! There's more of us than you know!
Deborah D| 1.6.10 @ 3:39PM
Hey ladies (Martha, Margie, Angel) add me to this conservative women's group! I live in NC. I just recently got into a row on FB with a woman I used to know from my hometown in Illinois. Whew -- she became like a stalker. Scared me a bit, but as I told her: I don't give a crap what my "friends" think of me for posting links to articles on FB (this was actually in response to Peter Ferrara's column the other day about how out of control the Dems are and ways we can get our representatives to listen to us.)
I told her the country is at stake, I might have to lose a few "friends" along the way, but I have to live with myself. I plan to do everything I can to get the word out because this is for my daughter's future and her childrens' etc.
If somehow we are defeated (and they'll have to kill me)...I hope those liberals who have contributed to destroying our country have children so they can watch their children's promise fade into nothingness. God bless you all.
Stay strong because the Dems want you to feel defeated. Never give up. Never give in. We outnumber them. God bless.
Margie| 1.6.10 @ 4:13PM
Deb D.,
Welcome North Carolina! How encouraging this is. May we stick together both in this forum, and in our personal lives. There's nothing like integrity through staying on the straight and narrow path of the truth (as best as we possibly can). By the Grace of God we will defeat both the enemies from within and from without.
Stay warm down there in N.C. I abhor the winters up here!
God bless.
The Other Bob| 1.5.10 @ 6:51PM
One last thing: from President Reagan...
'Recession is when your neighbor loses his job. Depression is when you lose your job. And recovery is when Democrats lose their jobs.'
Patriot| 1.5.10 @ 7:09PM
Well, I guess our "recovery" starts November 2, 2010!
victor| 1.5.10 @ 8:42PM
Actually, our recovery starts this spring with the coming primaries except for New York when they take place in September. Doug Hoffman will have to wait until then.
I heard Scott Brown on Hannity today and he is exactly what Conservative Republicans need to vote for on election day.
http://scottbrown.com/splash.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2.....9557.shtml
Every state has one or more of these guys.
Here's one: Col. Allen West in Flawida who needs our help too.
Until the RNC can prove that they can think their way out of a paper bag, we will give money to Conservatives without their help.
Tell Michael Steele, thanks, but no thanks, we'll spend our money on those Conservatives who need our help.
Speaking of Michael, I heard a promo for Joe Snoreborough. He is going to ask Michael why he should vote "Republican". If I were to tell Michael, I would tell him that to vote otherwise would ensure Obama 2.0 on Jan. 20, 2013.
One Obama has been atrocious so far, two Obamas would be devastating.
victor| 1.5.10 @ 8:43PM
Oops, forgot Allen's link:
http://allenwestforcongress.com/
Margie| 1.5.10 @ 8:05PM
Awesome. I think we ought to have a Reagan a Day Quote here at AmSpec. Maybe the authors could post one on the front page? If not, we can post them here.
Ken (Old Texican)| 1.5.10 @ 8:32PM
Thom,
Guys,
I understood what Thom was saying here above last spring. That is why I helped found T.E.A.M. AMERICA.
I truly do believe we have the "plan" in place, and have our hands on the reins.
I purely hope each of you will sign on and read our thoughts, and see if they make sense to you. If they do. then email me at kbjudgeroybean06@gmail.com
I will set you up on a game plan in your part of the country, and we really can take the House and Senate this November.
Thom, we don't need veto proof ...just defund in the House. Every funding MUST come from the House of Reps.
We can shut down the whole govt. from a majority there.
www.myteamusa.org or you can use our gateway site. http://judgeroy.wordpress.com and click over from there.
Thom| 1.5.10 @ 8:53PM
Ken, my only problem with the "defund" option is that that has been tried before and failed because the Media apparatus is overwhelmingly controlled by the Democrat Party. Better than 80% . Propaganda is propaganda even in the age of FNC (which I don’t get and tens of millions still don’t get cable) and the internet which while effective for some things still lags behind the power of the “Boob” tubes emotional appeal. I give you the election of King Obama as just one example of that power in play. I’m not suggesting it can’t be used effectively but that will require something the Republican Party has not demonstrated in a very long time, about two decades in fact, leadership and a set of principles it will govern with not just run on. Pragmatic cowards abound in the top ranks of the Party at the moment. I give you NYS 23….
It is not exactly a secret here but the current leadership of the movement is commentators on Talk Radio and FNC and the only person that has the demonstrated ability to connect with everyday Americans and lives the life they campaign on wears a shirt and their sex/gender is not in question. Christ was the message and the messenger from what I remember and the Republican Party has a proud history of eating their own best hopes at times. We can’t afford that any longer as a Nation.
Lullaby's, Legends and Lies| 1.5.10 @ 8:39PM
My Ronald Reagan quote of the day: "Our natural, inalienable rights are now considered to be a dispensation from government, and freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp as it is at this moment." Reagan Rocks!!
TennesseeVolunteer| 1.6.10 @ 12:20AM
The people will come. The clarion call has been sounded. For each of you brave Patriots on this site, there are thousands who do not write, but they read. And they are tired, so tired of seeing their country besmirched and manipulated by both an ignorant liberal class that is directed by the leftist elites who mean to do our country harm. For so long, I just thought it was a difference of opinion, but no more. Patriots from Martha's Noo Yawk across this grand country to California understand that this is our time, this is our duty..to elect conservative Patriots who will put the direction of this country pointed toward God, limited government and individual freedom.
This is not the time for us to fear the outcome but to believe that our cause is right, to show our fellows that our desire is one for country and not our individual gain and to stay determined in this battle.
You are all Patriots and are doing all you can, their are millions of others that are rising up. The left will not know what hit them..Hold On!
Northern rebel| 1.6.10 @ 1:26AM
My heart is warm, after reading the posts following the one that got Lib R's gander. I am so grateful to know I'm not alone in this battle against fascism, and those like Liberal Reader, Bob, David matthews, and others, who I suspect is the same lonely sad person.
Thank you Margie, Tenn Vol, Ken, lullaby,
Thom, and so many others that motivate me to continue the fight to save America.
If and when I'm in a foxhole, fighting the fascists, and socialist communists,
(Ole Texican shorthand)
I know you guys are out there, and it gives me strength. God Bless you all!
What's your new name gonna be tomorrow, Fascist Reader?
Margie| 1.6.10 @ 4:15PM
Northern Rebel,
You, the good Soldier, are the one that warms my heart.
Soldiers are the best!
God bless you.
braeny| 1.6.10 @ 4:24AM
I doubt the Taliban sits around saying ... "Hey the US dollar is up, maybe we should throw down our guns, stop trying to infiltrate the Afghan and Pakistani governments, stop funding & harboring terrorists, and quit trafficking heroin."
http://www.goarticles.com/cgi-.....?C=2448543
Ed Gagnon | 1.6.10 @ 7:54AM
Our goals will only be achieved by consistently doing what is right - by being consistently true to our values. It will be a long transition that will take many generations to complete. But if we do not start - if we continue to fight each other as though only each party is right and the other is wrong, the battle will wage forever.
The Value of Values
www.strategicpublishinggroup.c.....alues.html
An individual’s values are established in childhood and serve as filters when determining right from wrong throughout the person’s life. In today’s society, the process of establishing values within children is given little concern. People place greater emphasis on day to day activities and personal ambitions, than they do on the establishment of values within their children. By default, parents are teaching their children that values such as integrity, respect for life, courage of conviction, a purposeful life and generosity, are secondary to making a living.
In truth, it does not have to be this way. It is a matter of choice.
The “The Value of Values” teaches us why a values-conscious society is important. You will learn the actions that are needed. You will learn how to sustain the drive.
“The Value of Values” is a must read for every parent concerned about the direction of our society and the challenges our children will be facing.
Ed states: “we have three possible choices”.
1) “Do nothing different than that which we have been doing. Complacently accept things as they are and will be.”
2) “Hope that our leaders will guide society in the proper direction despite the fact that they place values second to ambitions.”
3) “Accept our personal responsibility to our children. Accept that real change is not passed down from leaders, but rather, it is driven up from the people. Accept the fact that we each have within us the ability to make things different for generations to come.”
“The choice we make today will determine the society of tomorrow.”
Pingback| 1.6.10 @ 8:06AM
Righting a Wrong: HIV Travel Ban Lifts | Xenia Institute links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Ken (Old Texican)| 1.6.10 @ 10:40AM
Ed,
Thanks for that reminder.
Ken (Old Texican)| 1.6.10 @ 10:44AM
Thom, your counterpoint is very well taken.
Thought: I wonder if any of us can even imagine the United States...a year from now.
The worse things get...if the communists, (pardon the shorthand), keep pushing like they are pushing... whew!...the pushback is going to be a bitch.
zombie| 1.6.10 @ 10:51AM
the process of establishing values within children is given little concern. People place greater emphasis on day to day activities and personal ambitions, than they do on the establishment of values within their children Hot Information
SoCon| 1.6.10 @ 2:33PM
I can't speak for you, Ed, so please don't speak for me! I worked my tail off to inculcate virtue in my children.
It's paid off, too; they're decent young Americans who love God, family and country.
There are many Americans like me--don't write us off.
Yosemeti Sam| 1.6.10 @ 11:19AM
"The War of the Presidents: Reagan Battles Obama in 2010"
The historical spectre of Reagan: the man - for all seasons; channeled by the electorate in
2010 to victory over:
Lefties in Congress and their supreme Black Bubba #2, BHO - a man out of Reagans'
league; more in line with the bush leagues.
Siegfried X| 1.6.10 @ 12:43PM
We haven't had a way of voting for Reagan for 15 years, since Newt Gingrich and the Contract With America.
In fact people actually wrote columns like this one last year saying that we should vote for John McCain (!) to carry on the Reagan Revolution! That's John McCain who voted against both of Bush's tax cuts and was Ted Kennedy's favorite Republican, for all the times he helped pass Democrat legislation.
If today's Republicans are Reagan's children, then where is the platform? If elected, exactly what will they pass and repeal? What is their 100 day agenda?
Those questions of course will never be answered. Because today's Republican Party believes in nothing more than getting reelected, and articles like this one are bait & switch tactics. Every election we are told the same thing, that the Democrats are bad, bad, bad so we must vote against them. Not for a Republican, but against the Democrats. Then when those Republicans get in office, those RINOs, they vote with the Democrat anyway! The one thing they claim, the one reason they give for voting for them, is that they aren't Democrats. Yet they vote like Democrats.
Margie| 1.6.10 @ 1:18PM
Sieg,
They're not ALL like Dems, and there are plenty of conservatives running in the Republican party right now across this still great land.. find out who they are in your state, and vote for them!
Things are indeed grim, as good Americans it is our duty to still vote for the best people, and to not go down without a fight. If we all resign ourselves to giving up then we have no chance of survival, and what could worse than through our giving up to then have another REIGN of Obama and the Fascists? There are no fascist Republicans, nor Communist admiring either!
Margie| 1.6.10 @ 2:01PM
My Ronald Reagan quote of the day:
"Above all, we must realize that no arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today's world do not have."
~and we have one strong arsenal.. we just need to use it. (our vote!)
Deboarh D| 1.6.10 @ 3:49PM
"Concentrated power has always been the enemy of liberty. "
Ronald Reagan
Osamas Pajamas| 1.7.10 @ 2:27AM
Stone cold dead on a slab, Reagan was a better man than Barak Hushpuppy OhBummer has ever been or is ever likely to be. I'd crawl over broken glass to vote for Reagan again, but it's too late for that now. It is said that we are all unique and different --- and I'll buy that --- but even so, somewhere, out there, there are other Reaganesque heroes --- and I expect that the perils of our age will summon them forth to fight these no-good bloodsucking Democrat bastards.
Pingback| 2.10.10 @ 3:02AM
Reagan vs. Obama: The 2010 Election Year | Be John Galt links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 2.16.10 @ 1:13PM
A Lasting Leadership Lesson: How One Leadership Talk By George Washington Saved The R links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 2.21.10 @ 4:09PM
Barry Bonds & Smeared Scientists: Who You Cheer For Reveals More About You Than Them! links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
d | 4.2.10 @ 3:31AM
d
patani news | 11.8.10 @ 5:52PM
Obama is 10 steps in front of Reagan
Converse | 8.11.11 @ 9:37PM
is good