That's the one huge error i think most folks make, which is that reagan may have been more of an idealist and believed in conservatism as a movement but he was also ultimately unsuccessful in what he set out to achieve (Bork, ammnesty and Beuirut are a few examples of either his failures or bad choices). Bush has won on almost everything barring SS reform and if he chose he could have even got Miers on the bench. Rummy was there for 6 years dammit! Reagan just didn't have the power Bush has and that's with both a GOP and Dem congress. Reagan will not go down as well as Bush will when it comes to history, 100 years down the line Bush will be seen as (at least) one of the 3 greatest presidents.

You're confusing success with degrees and levels of change, things will neverbe the same again. But we'll also never have another FL2000 again and nor will any other President wage wars in 2 seperate nations within the span of 15 months or so. I have always used the "historic proportions" argument, but only as a stop gap until enough time passes to allow his true legacy of glory to be viewed in all its true meaning. For example until then i think he'll most definately hold the record for the largest single (democratic election) popular vote turn out in the history western world.

Reagan had some pretty respectable goals, like tax cuts, deregulation, and shrinking the size of Government. On foreign policy, Reagan and Bush are radically different. GWB launched pre-emptive, unconstitutional war against Iraq, Reagan sent military aid to small nations around the world that requested our help, and constantly emphasized that "If there's gonna be a war, they (the USSR) will be the ones to start it, not us."

__________________


Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito

The more the state 'plans' the more difficult planning becomes for the individual. - F.A. Hayek

-The Ludwig von Mises Institute
-Ron Paul 2008
-The Constitution of the United States of America
-I am the NRA

Btw i also disagree he got his power because of 9/11, that's getting into the sort of 9/11 helping Republicans garbage that Hillary spouts.

Unless you're into grand conspiracies (also another Hillary wonder) and also think Reagan did get what he wanted with things like the bench because the abortion issue was still there to dangle and lack of fighting terror helped get 9/11 sorted out. But i know you don't believe that either.

I'll agree with you there, many of Reagan's goals (like getting rid of the departments of Education and Energy) never came to fruition. Overall he was moderatly succesfull in slowing the growth of the Government and seeking his goals.

__________________


Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito

The more the state 'plans' the more difficult planning becomes for the individual. - F.A. Hayek

-The Ludwig von Mises Institute
-Ron Paul 2008
-The Constitution of the United States of America
-I am the NRA

Who told you that garbage?

__________________
... ..................
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

One thing that's come out in this discussion is that the word "great" has varied meanings. So I'm going to start by defining my terms:

A great president is one whose accomplishments result in a stronger, more prosperous country, with better diplomatic prospects, a more secure peace, happier and more prosperous citizens, better educated people, and generally better lives for most Americans.

A bad president is one whose accomplishments, or failures, result in a weaker, less prosperous country, less respected around the world, less secure in its peace, with discontented and impoverished and more poorly-educated people, and generally worse lives for most Americans.

By that standard, I think the answer is pretty obvious. If in the long run Bush's accomplishments fall into the second category, it will be because his dismal failures have pushed us so deeply into the first that public outrage provokes some real reform that has been needed for decades. In that sense, he will be "great" in the same way as James Buchanan, whose fumbling politics brought on secession and the Civil War, or Calvin Coolidge, whose short-sighted economic policies led to the Great Depression. Generally, however, we apply the "great" level in those eras to Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt, who cleaned up the respective messes.

The same will, no doubt, be the case this time around.

The Reagan and the Bush legacy is the national debt, over half of which has been accumulated with a Bush in the White House, and most of whats left was accumulated under Reagan.
Reagan's funding of terrorists to overthrow elected governments, using tactics such as beheading innocent victims to spread terror is an aspect of his presidency that will come back to haunt his legacy.
He will be seen as a popular likable guy, who policies failed.
Bush will not fare as well, he will be remembered for the almost uninterrupted stream of management failures and his name will come to mean "ineffective, second rate", Oh wait, it already does.

__________________
“The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine.”

Senator Thad Cochran, Mississippi (R)
on McCain

“I decided I didn’t want this guy anywhere near a trigger.”
Senator Pete Domenici, New Mexico (R)
on McCain

“My anger did not help my campaign ... People don’t like angry candidates very much.”

McCain on McCain

As in, "My 1987 Dodge Dynasty was all Bushed up." Yeah, I can see it entering the vernacular.

One of Bush's main reasons for invading Iraq was to prevent a "mushroom cloud" from hanging over our cities, thus it was waged under the pretense of pre-empting the the enemy. It is unconstitutional because the power to invade was granted in a "resolution", not a formal declaration of war.

__________________


Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito

The more the state 'plans' the more difficult planning becomes for the individual. - F.A. Hayek

-The Ludwig von Mises Institute
-Ron Paul 2008
-The Constitution of the United States of America
-I am the NRA

I'm going to disagree with you here, PC. There's nothing in the document that says the Congress has to call a declaration of war with those words. The Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war, and puts some teeth in it by giving Congress authorization over funding, so that the president can't wage war (at least not for long) without Congressional approval. But there's nothing saying what form a declaration of war has to take, only that Congress gets to do it.

My belief here is that a Congressional resolution authorizing the president to wage war, IS a declaration of war, even if it isn't called one. It's Congress saying, OK, here's the go-ahead, and here's some money, now kick some ass. And since that's really all a "declaration of war" means, as far as I can see that makes it a declaration of war. The only way the president could violate that passage in the Constitution is if he went off and made war without any Congressional approval, and that would be kind of tough since he would quickly run out of money (unless of course Congress ran out of backbone first, which I wouldn't put past them).

I don't like this war. I agree it's preemptive and that's wrong. It's against everything our country has ever stood for. It sets a very bad, very dangerous precedent. And purely from a strategic standpoint, it's just plain totally godawful stupid. But I don't think it's unconstitutional, and we can't blame Bush solely for the disaster, although it's fine to give him the bulk of the blame. He couldn't have done it if Congress hadn't given the go-ahead. So it's their fault, too.

A greater contradiction has never existed.

LOL OK. Yes, our country has (at times) stood for the Constitution.

It's against all the values on which our country is founded, but it's not unconstitutional.

Is that better?

The Constitution gives Congress the power to "declare" war, like in a decalaration, not to "resolve" to go to war, like in a resolution, there's a difference between the two. And besides, nowhere in the Iraq Resolution was the word war even mentioned.

100% agree, the Republican congress that approved the war, and the Republican president who waged it need to both own up to the fact that they betrayed their conservative and constitutional values.

__________________


Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito

The more the state 'plans' the more difficult planning becomes for the individual. - F.A. Hayek

-The Ludwig von Mises Institute
-Ron Paul 2008
-The Constitution of the United States of America
-I am the NRA

Actually it was there all along
Of course, second rate would be high praise for the current President Bush.
He's shooting for second from the bottom.

__________________
“The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine.”

Senator Thad Cochran, Mississippi (R)
on McCain

“I decided I didn’t want this guy anywhere near a trigger.”
Senator Pete Domenici, New Mexico (R)
on McCain

“My anger did not help my campaign ... People don’t like angry candidates very much.”

McCain on McCain

Actually I would say that was one of the long-term side effects of the invasion, not the "main reason".

And when you think about it... if he was unimpeded...I think Hussein would probably have nuclear weapons by now or be close to it with means to deliver them to many strategic places.

That was why his refusal to abide by the treaty was a long-term threat.

And I must agree that Bush is a great President for recognizing existing and emergent threats and "nipping them off at the bud" so-to-speak before they could grow.

But to charachterize the invasion as exclusively "pre-emptive" of that , when the reality is that pre-empting that thing was only one of the beneficial side effects of the invasion....

Well...it's simply ludicrous.

Hussein had proved over and over again to be a threat without nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons would have just made the regime even more threatening than it already was.

__________________
... ..................
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.