Going to see the President of U.S. today

[Michael Larson]

Do yo uremeber how the "press" gave Reagan so very little praise? Unfortuantely that continues today.

And now we have the "press", entertainers and let's not forget the Dems. doing the same thing to Bush, especailly with regards to his intellegence.

Does anyone really believe that he is as he is portrayed?

[wforsyth]

Originally Posted by mlarson

Do yo uremeber how the "press" gave Reagan so very little praise? Unfortuantely that continues today.

And now we have the "press", entertainers and let's not forget the Dems. doing the same thing to Bush, especailly with regards to his intellegence.

Does anyone really believe that he is as he is portrayed?

Nope. I think he takes it with quite a bit of grace though. The media is completely corrupt and run by special interests nowadays. So it is not somewhere I pay attention to when looking for commentary on the President.

[lcapaul]

Originally Posted by mlarson

As much as I support Bush, he's no Reagan conservative is he?

Bush is not a Conservative at All, he's far, far to the Right of Conservatism.

Read the Military Commisions Act of 2006 for an Example of How Far Right of Right he's gone:

"Subsection 4(b) (26) of section 950v. of HR 6166 - Crimes triable by military commissions - includes the following definition.

"Any person subject to this chapter who, in breach of an allegiance or duty to the United States, knowingly and intentionally aids an enemy of the United States, or one of the co-belligerents of the enemy, shall be punished as a military commission under this chapter may direct."

For an individual to hold an allegiance or duty to the United States they need to be a citizen of the United States. Why would a foreign terrorist have any allegiance to the United States to breach in the first place?

Notice how ofthen Republicans say that any disagreement with Bush Policy is Giving Aid the "The Enemy"?

There's another nifty little part in this Bill that makes it Illegal for the Supreme Court or any Judge or person to challenge the Constitutionality of Bush's Torture Bill....and then there is the Destruction of Habeus Corpus....

If you compare the powers given to Bush under this Bill with those given to Hitler under the Enabling Act of 33', you'll see where the REpublicans got their wording for this Bill......

Of course someone said ""The government will make use of these powers only insofar as they are essential for carrying out vitally necessary measures...The number of cases in which an internal necessity exists for having recourse to such a law is in itself a limited one."....Was it Bush< Hitler, or both?

[James H. Bushart]

When I remarked, earlier, that we could use President Reagan in office today, it was his ability to lead - and to communicate to those he leads - as to who the enemy is and why we are fighting.

Here is an example of that skill:

Originally Posted by RReagan

Remarks at the U.S. Ranger Monument

Pointe du Hoc, France

June 6, 1984

One of two speeches commemorating the 40th Anniversary of the D-Day Invasion, this speech was delivered at the site of the U.S. Ranger Monument at Pointe du Hoc, France, where veterans of the Normandy Invasion, and others, had assembled for the ceremony. Later during the day, President Reagan spoke at Omaha Beach, France.
1,988 words.

We're here to mark that day in history when the Allied armies joined in battle to reclaim this continent to liberty. For four long years, much of Europe had been under a terrible shadow. Free nations had fallen, Jews cried out in the camps, millions cried out for liberation. Europe was enslaved, and the world prayed for its rescue. Here in Normandy the rescue began. Here the Allies stood and fought against tyranny in a giant undertaking unparalleled in human history.

We stand on a lonely, windswept point on the northern shore of France. The air is soft, but 40 years ago at this moment, the air was dense with smoke and the cries of men, and the air was filled with the crack of rifle fire and the roar of cannon. At dawn, on the morning of the 6th of June, 1944, 225 Rangers jumped off the British landing craft and ran to the bottom of these cliffs. Their mission was one of the most difficult and daring of the invasion: to climb these sheer and desolate cliffs and take out the enemy guns. The Allies had been told that some of the mightiest of these guns were here and they would be trained on the beaches to stop the Allied advance.

The Rangers looked up and saw the enemy soldiers--the edge of the cliffs shooting down at them with machine guns and throwing grenades. And the American Rangers began to climb. They shot rope ladders over the face of these cliffs and began to pull themselves up. When one Ranger fell, another would take his place. When one rope was cut, a Ranger would grab another and begin his climb again. They climbed, shot back, and held their footing. Soon, one by one, the Rangers pulled themselves over the top, and in seizing the firm land at the top of these cliffs, they began to seize back the continent of Europe. Two hundred and twenty-five came here. After two days of fighting, only 90 could still bear arms.

Behind me is a memorial that symbolizes the Ranger daggers that were thrust into the top of these cliffs. And before me are the men who put them there.

These are the boys of Pointe du Hoc. (Bushart Note: At this, he raised his eyes from his prepared speech and looked out upon the small gathering of survivors who were in attendance and who were accepting the applause of the crowd.) These are the men who took the cliffs. These are the champions who helped free a continent. These are the heroes who helped end a war.

Gentlemen, I look at you and I think of the words of Stephen Spender's poem. You are men who in your "lives fought for life . . . and left the vivid air signed with your honor.''

I think I know what you may be thinking right now--thinking, "We were just part of a bigger effort; everyone was brave that day.'' Well, everyone was. Do you remember the story of Bill Millin of the 51st Highlanders? Forty years ago today, British troops were pinned down near a bridge, waiting desperately for help. Suddenly, they heard the sound of bagpipes, and some thought they were dreaming. Well, they weren't. They looked up and saw Bill Millin with his bagpipes, leading the reinforcements and ignoring the smack of the bullets into the ground around him.

Lord Lovat was with him--Lord Lovat of Scotland, who calmly announced when he got to the bridge, "Sorry I'm a few minutes late,'' as if he'd been delayed by a traffic jam, when in truth he'd just come from the bloody fighting on Sword Beach, which he and his men had just taken.

There was the impossible valor of the Poles who threw themselves between the enemy and the rest of Europe as the invasion took hold, and the unsurpassed courage of the Canadians who had already seen the horrors of war on this coast. They knew what awaited them there, but they would not be deterred. And once they hit Juno Beach, they never looked back.

All of these men were part of a rollcall of honor with names that spoke of a pride as bright as the colors they bore: the Royal Winnipeg Rifles, Poland's 24th Lancers, the Royal Scots Fusiliers, the Screaming Eagles, the Yeomen of England's armored divisions, the forces of Free France, the Coast Guard's "Matchbox Fleet'' and you, the American Rangers.

Forty summers have passed since the battle that you fought here. You were young the day you took these cliffs; some of you were hardly more than boys, with the deepest joys of life before you.

Yet, you risked everything here. Why? Why did you do it? What impelled you to put aside the instinct for self-preservation and risk your lives to take these cliffs? What inspired all the men of the armies that met here? We look at you, and somehow we know the answer. It was faith and belief; it was loyalty and love.

The men of Normandy had faith that what they were doing was right, faith that they fought for all humanity, faith that a just God would grant them mercy on this beachhead or on the next. It was the deep knowledge--and pray God we have not lost it--that there is a profound, moral difference between the use of force for liberation and the use of force for conquest. You were here to liberate, not to conquer, and so you and those others did not doubt your cause. And you were right not to doubt.

You all knew that some things are worth dying for. One's country is worth dying for, and democracy is worth dying for, because it's the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man. All of you loved liberty. All of you were willing to fight tyranny, and you knew the people of your countries were behind you.

The Americans who fought here that morning knew word of the invasion was spreading through the darkness back home. They thought--or felt in their hearts, though they couldn't know in fact, that in Georgia they were filling the churches at 4 a.m., in Kansas they were kneeling on their porches and praying, and in Philadelphia they were ringing the Liberty Bell.

Something else helped the men of D-Day: their rock-hard belief that Providence would have a great hand in the events that would unfold here; that God was an ally in this great cause. And so, the night before the invasion, when Colonel Wolverton asked his parachute troops to kneel with him in prayer he told them: Do not bow your heads, but look up so you can see God and ask His blessing in what we're about to do. Also that night, General Matthew Ridgway on his cot, listening in the darkness for the promise God made to Joshua: "I will not fail thee nor forsake thee.''

These are the things that impelled them; these are the things that shaped the unity of the Allies.

When the war was over, there were lives to be rebuilt and governments to be returned to the people. There were nations to be reborn. Above all, there was a new peace to be assured. These were huge and daunting tasks. But the Allies summoned strength from the faith, belief, loyalty, and love of those who fell here. They rebuilt a new Europe together.

There was first a great reconciliation among those who had been enemies, all of whom had suffered so greatly. The United States did its part, creating the Marshall Plan to help rebuild our allies and our former enemies. The Marshall Plan led to the Atlantic alliance--a great alliance that serves to this day as our shield for freedom, for prosperity, and for peace.

In spite of our great efforts and successes, not all that followed the end of the war was happy or planned. Some liberated countries were lost. The great sadness of this loss echoes down to our own time in the streets of Warsaw, Prague, and East Berlin. Soviet troops that came to the center of this continent did not leave when peace came. They're still there, uninvited, unwanted, unyielding, almost 40 years after the war. Because of this, Allied forces still stand on this continent. Today, as 40 years ago, our armies are here for only one purpose--to protect and defend democracy. The only territories we hold are memorials like this one and graveyards where our heroes rest.

We in America have learned bitter lessons from two World Wars: It is better to be here ready to protect the peace than to take blind shelter across the sea, rushing to respond only after freedom is lost. We've learned that isolationism never was and never will be an acceptable response to tyrannical governments with an expansionist intent.

But we try always to be prepared for peace; prepared to deter aggression; prepared to negotiate the reduction of arms; and, yes, prepared to reach out again in the spirit of reconciliation. In truth, there is no reconciliation we would welcome more than a reconciliation with the Soviet Union, so, together, we can lessen the risks of war, now and forever.

It's fitting to remember here the great losses also suffered by the Russian people during World War II: 20 million perished, a terrible price that testifies to all the world the necessity of ending war. I tell you from my heart that we in the United States do not want war. We want to wipe from the face of the Earth the terrible weapons that man now has in his hands. And I tell you, we are ready to seize that beachhead. We look for some sign from the Soviet Union that they are willing to move forward, that they share our desire and love for peace, and that they will give up the ways of conquest. There must be a changing there that will allow us to turn our hope into action.

We will pray forever that some day that changing will come. But for now, particularly today, it is good and fitting to renew our commitment to each other, to our freedom, and to the alliance that protects it.

We are bound today by what bound us 40 years ago, the same loyalties, traditions, and beliefs. We're bound by reality. The strength of America's allies is vital to the United States, and the American security guarantee is essential to the continued freedom of Europe's democracies. We were with you then; we are with you now. Your hopes are our hopes, and your destiny is our destiny.

Here, in this place where the West held together, let us make a vow to our dead. Let us show them by our actions that we understand what they died for. Let our actions say to them the words for which Matthew Ridgway listened: "I will not fail thee nor forsake thee.''

Strengthened by their courage, heartened by their value [valor], and borne by their memory, let us continue to stand for the ideals for which they lived and died.

Thank you very much, and God bless you all.

[jmichalski]

Originally Posted by mlarson

Do yo uremeber how the "press" gave Reagan so very little praise? Unfortuantely that continues today.

And now we have the "press", entertainers and let's not forget the Dems. doing the same thing to Bush, especailly with regards to his intellegence.

Does anyone really believe that he is as he is portrayed?

Come on, even Bush's handlers will tell you that their guy is an awful speaker. It isn't about portrayal - it's about how you come across when you speak and how seriously you take your elivery and public persona.

If you speak eloquently, and have a good delivery (Reagan, Clinton) then your words have more impact.

If you make jokes about your own inability to speak well, and consistently wind up in "rhetorial cul de sacs" (my favorite Rove-ism for describing Bush's speaking ability), then you will be viewed as someone who less sharp.

Reagan did not help his own cause in terms of his image with quips about signs on his deask that say "Reagan slept here". He went for folksy and charming intentionally (which was part of his mass appeal), but could also transition to powerful and confident. He had great range.

[lcapaul]

He went for folksy and charming intentionally (which was part of his mass appeal), but could also transition to powerful and confident. He had great range.>>>

Reagan was an Actor, what did you expect? I did like Reagan though, I voted for him twice, I just couldn't stand the people he chose to have around him...Bush41, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Jim Baker, Caspar Weinberger, George Shultz.......the same old gang Bush43 has around him......

[Mario A. Kyriacou, CHI]

Originally Posted by jmichalski

Come on, even Bush's handlers will tell you that their guy is an awful speaker. It isn't about portrayal - it's about how you come across when you speak and how seriously you take your elivery and public persona.

If you speak eloquently, and have a good delivery (Reagan, Clinton) then your words have more impact.

If you make jokes about your own inability to speak well, and consistently wind up in "rhetorial cul de sacs" (my favorite Rove-ism for describing Bush's speaking ability), then you will be viewed as someone who less sharp.

Reagan did not help his own cause in terms of his image with quips about signs on his deask that say "Reagan slept here". He went for folksy and charming intentionally (which was part of his mass appeal), but could also transition to powerful and confident. He had great range.

Joe

He[Bush] is getting progressively better with his speeches.

[lcapaul]

Originally Posted by mkyriacou

Joe

He[Bush] is getting progressively better with his speeches.

He (Bush) should be getting better, he's been repeating th same speeches for years....he is getting a lot worse though iwhen it comes to answering questions, of course today he doesn't have as many shills in the audience to ask him the questions he has already been given the answers to.....

[jmichalski]

Originally Posted by mkyriacou

Joe

He[Bush] is getting progressively better with his speeches.

Mario, even his handlers recognize it is a flaw and admit to this day (just last Thursday on air) that he is poor (not even a fair - they said poor).

When you have trouble constructing arguements or reading pre-printed text, you have to expect that you will come under attack for being dim.

Fortunately, we only have to listen to two more years of this. I say that not as a Bush-basher (although I think he is a mediocre to poor president), but as a lover of prose and great speeches.

[Michael Larson]

Excuse me but no where did imply that Bush is an eloquent speaker. But often his speech is very good. I suspect a fair number of those on this board may well come across as less that "smart" if we where in his position.

However, countless comedians and politicos question Bush's intelligence on a regular basis. They make him out to be and "idiot" that just doesn't have the "gravitas"(remember that gem?) to be president. I contend you don't get to the top of the heap if you don't have it upstairs.


Think about the legacy that Reagan has and compare it with the legacy of the most recent Democratic president. History will be the judge in the end.

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by lcapaul

Bush is not a Conservative at All, he's far, far to the Right of Conservatism...

And on this issue alone you deem bush far right?

Isn't that rather one dimensional?

If other's where to use a different single issue as the measure of "leftedness" or "rightedness", Bush would be considered "far left" on the illegal immigration issue.

[lcapaul]

Think about the legacy that Reagan has and compare it with the legacy of the most recent Democratic president. History will be the judge in the end.>>>

You think a Legacy of Deceipt, Illegal wars, selling weapons to Terrorists, the Iran Contra Affair, and leaving Office with, at the time, a Record Deficit is better than being Impeached over a Blow Joband leaving Office with a Balanced Budget, a $100+ Billion Surplus, and an Iraq that had no WMD's and no Military Power, and who's "Military Strength had been so degraded as not to be a threat even to its neighbors"......Conolicia Rice spring of 01'.......Clinton also left Office with a 66% approval Rating...today he has a 55% approval rating, Bush is at 37%

In a poll over who was the best president since WWII, only Reagan was rated better than Clinton..

"Thinking about the United States presidents we have had since World War II -- [see below] -- which one would you consider the best president?"

.

%
Ronald Reagan 28
Bill Clinton 25
John Kennedy 18
Harry Truman 7
Jimmy Carter 5
Dwight Eisenhower 5
George W. Bush 3
George Bush Senior 2
Gerald Ford 1
Lyndon Johnson 1
Richard Nixon 1
No opinion 4 http://www.pollingreport.com/wh-hstry.htm

Reagan was a good President, whether you agreed with him or not very few people doubted that what ever he did, he believed he was doing it for the good of the Country, few believe that anything Bush43 does is for any one other than his rich buddies, Big Corporations, and the Religious Extreme.......History will look at Bushs time in Office as one of the most dangerous to the U.S. Constitution and Democracy, it will, and already does, look at the Clinton Impeachment as an attempted Coups......

I would trade Bush43 for Reagan or Clinton any day, hell, I'd rather have his father back in Office

[jmichalski]

Originally Posted by mlarson

Excuse me but no where did imply that Bush is an eloquent speaker. But often his speech is very good. I suspect a fair number of those on this board may well come across as less that "smart" if we where in his position.

However, countless comedians and politicos question Bush's intelligence on a regular basis. They make him out to be and "idiot" that just doesn't have the "gravitas"(remember that gem?) to be president. I contend you don't get to the top of the heap if you don't have it upstairs.


Think about the legacy that Reagan has and compare it with the legacy of the most recent Democratic president. History will be the judge in the end.

Sure you can get to the top of the heap with daddy's name and money. History is replete with dim presidents.

The statement I responded to said "do you thik he is as portrayed?"

Yes - he is a bad speaker. Poor speaking ability lends itself to jokes and/or questions about your intelligence. It is a simple fact. The fact that a staffer wrote a great speech has no bearing at all on the way he delivers it. I cringe (having written speeches) imagining the way his writers must feel watching him deliver the State of the Union speeche they wrote.

As for gravitas - I think what was being portrayed in taht comment is that he lacks the persona that is respected on an international stage. Tony Blair - GREAT speaker, widely respected even when he is frequently disagreed with. Bush - not at all the same. Partisans with blinders disagree (of course) but it is an image problem that handlers have battled (and acknowledged) for his entire presidency and does lend itself to jokes and derision.

I don't think his poor speaking ability makes him a bad president. It hurts his image. Comedians didn't make him fumble for words or mispronsounce things - they just make fun of his propensity to do it.

[jmichalski]

Originally Posted by mlarson

Think about the legacy that Reagan has and compare it with the legacy of the most recent Democratic president. History will be the judge in the end.

Reagan pushed for a balanced budget amendment.

Without one - Clinton produced record surplusses.

Under Bush we are again facing trillion dollar deficits.



Under Reagan - cold war ending.

Under Clinton - peace accords in the middle east and ireland.

Under Bush - entire mid-east at war, N. norea testing nukes, and only Britain as an ally.


History will indeed be the judge.

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by jmichalski

History will indeed be the judge.

It certainly will Joseph.

Question for you.

Is the "War on Terror" legitimate?