BS: Reagan or Bush To Thread - Forum Home

The Mudcat Café TM
https://mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=46489
25 messages

BS: Reagan or Bush

14 Apr 02 - 04:13 AM (#689647)
Subject: Reagan or Bush
From: Les Jones

Which is most scarry, Reagan as President, whilst everything was decided by the secret group that managed him, or Bush doing things by himself?


14 Apr 02 - 06:09 AM (#689683)
Subject: RE: Reagan or Bush
From: van lingle

It's a photo finish, Les.


14 Apr 02 - 08:29 AM (#689713)
Subject: RE: Reagan or Bush
From: Midchuck

How about Clinton and Kennedy being run by their dorks?

(Which is not to say that Reagan and Bush aren't scary - just to be evenhanded about it.)

Peter.


14 Apr 02 - 09:06 AM (#689722)
Subject: RE: Reagan or Bush
From: kendall

Clinton wasn't run by his "dork"


14 Apr 02 - 12:36 PM (#689821)
Subject: RE: Reagan or Bush
From: CarolC

What makes you think Bush is doing anything by himself?


14 Apr 02 - 12:38 PM (#689822)
Subject: RE: Reagan or Bush
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor

A1 or HP Sauce?


14 Apr 02 - 12:40 PM (#689823)
Subject: RE: Reagan or Bush
From: Les Jones

Bush seems to function without a forward strategy. Reagan's or I suppose his minders, strategy was scarry but the USSR fell apart and ceased to be a major problem.

Clinton was sexually irresponsible, which brings all his judgement into question but his heart seemed to be in the right place and he seemed to have the ability to get people talking.


14 Apr 02 - 02:12 PM (#689875)
Subject: RE: Reagan or Bush
From: michaelr

C'mon Les - it should be common knowledge that Bush's strings are controlled by a bunch of his father's cronies. I think if he was on his own he would be a terrible bumbler, but not nearly as scary as he is.

Cheers,
Michael


14 Apr 02 - 03:52 PM (#689924)
Subject: RE: Reagan or Bush
From: Lonesome EJ

Bush and Reagan have several things in common : Belief that what benefits Big Business in America will have a ripple effect that will also benefit the majority of the population, that military strength is prime motivator for America in negotiating foreign policy, that environmental dangers are exaggerated by a powerful leftwing lobby whose principal agenda is the obstruction of progress, and that running a major deficit (while bad for business) is good for the federal government. They are also classic delegators, leaving management decision-making to their teams. The major difference is that Reagan was a sort of Conservative visionary, able to effectively articulate a vision for America. As such, he was a proactive politician, setting new schemes and designs in motion. Bush, by contrast, is much like his Father...a very reactive politician, lacking vision to articulate and project a vision. He is most comfortable when presented with a concrete challenge (9/11 and its aftermath), and fumbles when it comes to more abstract agendas such as the economy, the environment, crime, and articulating an American Foreign Policy agenda independent of the War on Terrorism.

Neither man is a leader I would choose, but in terms of effectiveness in evolving, articulating, and engaging leadership as a President, Reagan was far above Bush. I think even most Conservative Mudcatters would agree with that assessment.


14 Apr 02 - 04:42 PM (#689948)
Subject: RE: Reagan or Bush
From: CarolC

...in terms of effectiveness in evolving, articulating, and engaging leadership as a President, Reagan was far above Bush

Either that, or he just looked better (and perhaps more convincing) than Bush when he acted as the mouthpiece for his handlers and their vision.


14 Apr 02 - 05:19 PM (#689977)
Subject: RE: Reagan or Bush
From: Lonesome EJ

You might be right Carol. I believe Reagan was pretty much his own man, like him or not.


14 Apr 02 - 05:35 PM (#689995)
Subject: RE: Reagan or Bush
From: Hyperabid

A political recipe

Ask them in Serve them hemlock Call it poetry Plead insanity

Kindest regards

Hyp


14 Apr 02 - 06:30 PM (#690034)
Subject: RE: Reagan or Bush
From: Gareth

There is soething to be said for the US of A constitution restricting the office of President to two terms.

Unless, of course, it becomes hereditary.

But then at least the Bush children drink, and admit it, so maybe there's hope yet.


14 Apr 02 - 06:35 PM (#690037)
Subject: RE: Reagan or Bush
From: DougR

Right, Kendall. Clinton wasn't run by his "dork." He was run by his something else that begins with a "d." (Couldn't resist :>>))

DougR


15 Apr 02 - 05:35 AM (#690275)
Subject: RE: Reagan or Bush
From: Hrothgar

Working backwards:

Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Clinton, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy ........

I'd feel sorry for the Yanks if I wasn't so scared for the rest of us!


15 Apr 02 - 10:12 AM (#690423)
Subject: RE: Reagan or Bush
From: GUEST,Bill Kennedy

a few things make Bush scarier - by far - one - he is still President - we survived Reagan and his handlers, though the legacy still does harm

two - Reagan was/is a bad actor, reading what was put in front of him convinced some people that there was more there than there was - there is an interesting side note to this in one of Oliver Sacks' studies, a group of brain injured patients who develop an ability to detect insincerity, AKA 'lying', in the facial expressions of people used to laugh hysterically whenever Reagan came on the tube because they could see he was lying, and what he was saying was so completely incongruous with what he believed. BUSH, on the other hand, has beliefs and is willing to act on them.

three - Bush's beliefs - anyone who actually professes to believe in Armageddon and the Second Coming has no business directing this country and the world toward it.


15 Apr 02 - 10:34 AM (#690438)
Subject: RE: Reagan or Bush
From: CarolC

Hrothgar,

Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Clinton, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy ........ ?

Are you sure about that?


15 Apr 02 - 11:55 AM (#690534)
Subject: RE: Reagan or Bush
From: Ebbie

Maybe Hrothgar is, for a purpose, just not including them all?

It is dismaying to realize that those who are effective are not necessarily right for the country. On the other hand, I can't imagine anyone in the world meeting every citizens's needs. My parents, for instance, despised and feared FDR.

And certainly, from the beginning, each one of our leaders had his foes as well as adherents. Maybe the point is that the country is greater than either the bumblings or the excesses of any individual administration.

Ebbie


15 Apr 02 - 12:06 PM (#690540)
Subject: RE: Reagan or Bush
From: GUEST,Les B.

Saw a great analysis the other day: Historians will refer to the Clinton era as "Sex between the Bushes!!"


15 Apr 02 - 12:54 PM (#690581)
Subject: RE: Reagan or Bush
From: Ebbie

That's funny, Les!


15 Apr 02 - 01:09 PM (#690589)
Subject: RE: Reagan or Bush
From: Bobert

Bush, by far, because the stakes are higher, and because not only has he let some very right winged folks hack away at our rights and liberties but he seems to condone violence as a means of solving differences. His administration makes Ronnie's Raygun's look like the good old days...


15 Apr 02 - 09:44 PM (#690889)
Subject: RE: Reagan or Bush
From: kendall

Maybe we are expecting too much for an administration that is made up of, a bush a colon and a dick.


15 Apr 02 - 09:49 PM (#690894)
Subject: RE: Reagan or Bush
From: Bobert

Hmmmmmmmm? Think Kendall's on to something....


16 Apr 02 - 04:54 AM (#691076)
Subject: RE: Reagan or Bush
From: Stephen L. Rich

Bush Lite couldn't tie his own shoes. Look one rung down the ladder to see who is runnung things.


16 Apr 02 - 05:32 AM (#691092)
Subject: RE: Reagan or Bush
From: kendall

At least, Warren G. Harding admitted he wasn't up to the job.