Some of the Republican candidates for President are trying to align themselves with the legacy of Ronald Reagan. They are attempting to portray their platforms as similar to Reagan’s during his eight wonderful years as President.They want us to believe that they can take our country back to the times of Reagan, where the United States was respected and feared in the same sentence. Back to the times when Reagan stood eye to eye with the Soviet Union; daring them to blink.
I remember the Reagan Presidency. He was like your wise old grandfather, taking about how we could be great again after the four-year debacle know as the Jimmy Carter Administration.
When terrorists blew up a discothèque, frequented by American troops in Berlin, Reagan stated when he found out who was behind it; he would take severe and decisive action against them.
Muammar Quaddafi of Libya was behind the attack. When that fact was found out, Reagan sent planes to bomb Libya. If memory serves me, he attacked one of the known locations of Quaddafi headquarters. Quaddafi was not there, but one of his young sons was. He died in the attack. After that, we heard nothing out of him. Quaddafi did absolutely nothing. Why? Because he knew, Reagan was serious.
When Reagan came up with the idea of building the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), the Soviets shook in their boots. They complained that it would upset the balance of power and would give the USA a first strike weapon.
Reagan responded after the technology was developed, he would share it with them. Its existence would make conventions atomic and nuclear weapons obsolete.
The Soviets were afraid of Reagan. They knew he was serious and would not allow the United States to take a back seat to anyone when it came to being a super power and defending the world against the evils of Communism.
Many chastised Reagan at the time and some to this day hate his memory. They cannot find one good thing to say about him and his administration.
So why it is that the candidates of today want to align themselves with his image? I see it as an attempt to gain support for their Presidential bid. The question I have is “Do they really think people will believe that they can be the kind of President Reagan was?”
Growing up, I remember how my parents revered John F. Kennedy. They though he was the best thing to come around since sliced bread. I, too, was caught up in the Kennedy mystic. I event had a bust relief picture of his in my room.
As I got older, I studied, read and found out how the Kennedy Presidency was not very memorable. It was a group of people who were caught up in this handsome young man and his wife’s run for the White House. It sort of sounds like the Clintons and the Obamas.
I equate Kennedy’s run in 1960 with the Obama run today and the Clinton’s run in 1992, 1996 and today. All talk and no substance. They talk of change without telling anyone what that change is.
The Republicans need a candidate who truly is a pupil of Reagan. The Republicans need a person who emulates the best traits and insights of The Great Communicator. Not only do the Republicans need it, the United States of America need it.
4 comments:
True, true...but where is this person. I have looked from candidate to candidate with no one who could even come close to filling Ronnie's boots.
As for Kennedy, he was more conservative in many ways than some of the current Republican field. I don't think that Teddy would even be able to vote for some of the JFK legislation.
Sometimes in the last twenty years there has been a genetic change in politicians...mouths with two sides, the total elimination of the backbone, and of course the ever larger hand permanently outstretched to accept the money of special interest groups.
Is there any hope? I am keeping a candle lit as I struggle through the darkness.
I do not know whom to support either. I am very scared this country is heading into the deep, dark abyss. No one seems willing or able to take us where we need to be.
I don't think its "such a candidate doesn't exist", I think its more of a "Such a candidate doesn't exist who either: doesn't want to or can't survive under the microscope of the media." Let's face it, in todays digital world nobody can escape the unprecedented public scrutiny that currently exists. Pretty soon, if your got an "F" in 2nd grade you will be disqualified. Further more,
in todays world you are unable to EVER change you view on issues without a huge media blowout.I always thought that changing ones views is essential to maturing. I certainly don't think the same way now as I did ten years ago. So why should politicians? Now, changing your views right before or during an election cycle is flip-flopping.
It almost seems that the media is more in control of who wins and looses and not the voters.
I also am in big favor of Public Service Terms Limits & not being able to accept money from anyone but private citizens and only then in form of a check or CC transaction given directly to the campaign by that person. Return the power of election money back to the people and not big interest. Our Current "Ebay" government can't get anything done because of "competing interests." Term limits could be: 12 yrs at state lvl, 12 yrs on the Fed lvl and 8 yrs in the White House. Not, 40 yrs in the senate. Hell, I might be happy with just not allowing felons to serve in congress. These issues, above all else, prohibits change.
Sorry for the long comment, I just can't turn off the spicket sometimes.
Esaba[CZ]: I agree with the term limits. Public service should not be a lifetime job in the same position. I also think politicians should not be allowed to become a lobbyist immediately after ending their public service. There could be too much of a chance of influence peddling.
Post a Comment