Written in Jan. 2001, not so funny in hindsight

[GivenToFly]

http://web.archive.o..._nightmare.html

[arnold layne]

Oh dear.

[TeeJay410]

During the 40-minute speech, Bush also promised to bring an end to the severe war drought that plagued the nation under Clinton, assuring citizens that the U.S. will engage in at least one Gulf War-level armed conflict in the next four years.

This is terrifying.

[downzy]

Wow, how prophetic. And it amazes me how often you'll read on message boards or comment sections relating to politics or election events on how Obama is the worst president the U.S. has ever had. The U.S. may be a more educated country in some sense, but some are still completely blind to history and objective realities.

It's telling that at this year's conventions, you'll see a former Democratic President being lavished with praise as he takes the podium for a marquee speech, while the Republicans will not have one former President in attendance. Why is it that Clinton's appearance is highly celebrated and yet nobody is asking Bush Jr. to show up to the Republican event?

[DirtyDeeds]

There are only 4 former Presidents still living, though, 2 from each party. Republicans know they can't run on a W-like platform, so W will not be in any spotlight. Likewise, HW, for younger voters, still has the same name as his son, and his own presidency wasn't much to glorify. Carter is kind of a controversial figure it seems, both because of the end of his presidency especially, and because of his criticisms of current Presidents. So that leaves Clinton. Clinton is more relevant today than the others probably for the most part due to his wife, Hillary. And besides that, you can tie him into the health care effort, and you can try and sway some fiscal conservatives because of the budget surplus. There are only four guys alive, and it's not surprising really that most of them are not to be considered overly positive figures. If Reagan was still kicking, you know for sure the Republicans would wheel him out.

[Dazey]

If Reagan was still kicking, you know for sure the Republicans would wheel him out.

Weren't they doing that for most of his second term?

Edited August 10, 2012 by Dazey

[DirtyDeeds]

If Reagan was still kicking, you know for sure the Republicans would wheel him out.

Weren't they doing that for most of his second term?

You're bad.

You're also right.

[Vincent Vega]

It's too bad Nixon and Ford aren't still alive. Would love to see them comment on today's politics.

[downzy]

There are only 4 former Presidents still living, though, 2 from each party. Republicans know they can't run on a W-like platform, so W will not be in any spotlight. Likewise, HW, for younger voters, still has the same name as his son, and his own presidency wasn't much to glorify. Carter is kind of a controversial figure it seems, both because of the end of his presidency especially, and because of his criticisms of current Presidents. So that leaves Clinton. Clinton is more relevant today than the others probably for the most part due to his wife, Hillary. And besides that, you can tie him into the health care effort, and you can try and sway some fiscal conservatives because of the budget surplus. There are only four guys alive, and it's not surprising really that most of them are not to be considered overly positive figures. If Reagan was still kicking, you know for sure the Republicans would wheel him out.

True, but would Reagan even want to go to a Republican convention in this day and age? The party has taken such a hard turn to the right that it would be unrecognizable to a guy like Reagan. Current Republicans do not praise Reagan for who he really was, they praise a distorted characterization. The guy advanced the notion of a world without nuclear weapons, signed tax increases, believed in the separation of church and state, granted amnesty to over 3 million illegal immigrants, made abortion legal when Governor of California, grew the size of government, vastly increased deficits, raised payroll taxes to save social security in 1983, and supported the Brady Act that imposed gun restrictions (which Republicans today seek to repeal).

If Reagan were running for the Presidency today (and running on his own convictions, unlike Romney) he'd never make it through the primary season.

Four years following Clinton's departure as President, he was still the bell of the ball at the 2004 Democratic convention. The same can't be said for W. Bush. And this is what I think the Republican's biggest problem is. Though they're not associating with Bush on a personal level, they're not exactly offering much in way of contrast from a policy standpoint. The only thing you hear from Republicans today is a policy platform that is even more extreme than what Bush imposed or attempted to. "Lower taxes, reduce or eliminate regulations, get government out of the way." These were the same policies that Bush advocated (and in fairness, were part of Clinton's administration as well, particularly the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act).

From a policy standpoint, I do not understand how you can convince an electorate to return to policies that helped create the problems. I'm not suggesting that government can't be a hindrance to economic revival, but I don't know how they intend to differentiate themselves from an economic platform that severely weakened the national economy.

Edited August 10, 2012 by downzy