2004 and beyond.....

[PD]

Great screen name 'Reaganfan.'  There were so many of you people whon elected that old-as-hell actor.  but don't get me started on Reagan

I hold Bush's chances at 65% in 2004.

Reagan was the best president this nation has ever seen.

[PD]

I agree PD, wow a California Republican. Arnold would be proud!!!

Heh. Are you sure you want to be friends with me. I'm hated by every member of the forum except a few. It's because I'm an extremely far right-wing conservative republican. Even members of our own party attack me and despise me. You might not be liked too well if you associate yourself with me. Just a warning. But I would be glad to be your friend. I'm just warning you. And you would be surprised at how many republicans CA has. There are a lot of conservatives here. I do like Arnold, but he's not as conservative as I would like. He's a moderate, I'm an extremist. But hey, my parents supported him and voted for him. (I'm 15, so I can't vote yet and still live at home.) I even met him. They voted for him because McClintock didn't stand a chance. Arnold could win. So they had to vote for the person that could oust Davis. I personally like Bill Simon.

[PD]

Reagan was certainly the best President in my lifetime, but I think it's a stretch to say he was the greatest President ever. Some guys named Lincoln and Washington might have something to say about that!!!

As for Reaganfan's overall point...I agree, this will turn into a Kerry/Edwards ticket against Bush/Cheney. And I agree that Bush will win by a reasonably comfortable margin. The main reason is that I cannot imagine any states that Bush won in 2000 switching over to the Dems in 2004...and I can imagine a few Democratic states moving over to the Republican column in 2004.

The states that Bush won in 2000 that Democrats believe they can realistically win are the following:

1. Ohio
2. West Virginia
3. Nevada
4. New Hampshire
5. Arizona
6. Florida

All six would be within reach, but only under the wildest of circumstances. The Bush administration would have to make some major screwup between now and Election Day, and that is extremely unlikely. Weapons of Mass Destruction??? Other than hardcore Dems, people could care less. The economy??? The job situation is still so/so, but it's on the upswing and the stock market has made a miraculous recovery. Major terrorist event??? People would rally around the President rather than blame him...plus, when it comes to matters of national security, the average citizen trust the Republicans about 10 times more than the Dems. So the worse things got in terms of terrorism, the more they would turn to Bush.

The only ones that they could actually win out of those are West Virginia and New Hampshire.

[PD]

Reagan was the best president this nation has ever seen.

(coughFDRcough)

No offense, but FDR was an idiot. I admit he did a few good things, but he was repeatedly informed of Soviet infiltration of our government and said that it could not happen. He would not believe it. He was even shown papers and proof. Well, it turned out that there were thousands of Soviet spys holding high government offices in our government. That was proved after his death. A bunch of them were his personal assistants and advisors. At one point, one of his vice presidents (not Truman, I forget his name) was a Soviet spy. Not too many people know this information because the majority of it was kept secret for a long time. He was shaking hands with Stalin and in his mind he was saying "I'm so glad that Russia and America can get along." At the exact moment, Stalin was standing there and in his head saying "Sucker." FDR would just not believe it.

[PD]

No offense, but FDR was an idiot. I admit he did a few good things, but he was repeatedly informed of Soviet infiltration of our government and said that it could not happen. He would not believe it. He was even shown papers and proof. Well, it turned out that there were thousands of Soviet spys holding high government offices in our government. That was proved after his death. A bunch of them were his personal assistants and advisors. At one point, one of his vice presidents (not Truman, I forget his name) was a Soviet spy. Not too many people know this information because the majority of it was kept secret for a long time. He was shaking hands with Stalin and in his mind he was saying "I'm so glad that Russia and America can get along." At the exact moment, Stalin was standing there and in his head saying "Sucker." FDR would just not believe it.

He did only a few good things?  Please.  He brought the country out of the GREAT depresson, he brought down Hitler and eventually Stalin, and won four election decisively.  Reagan is nowhere near FDR.

Yeah, he brought us out of the Depression, but it took him long enough. He did not bring down Hitler, Stalin did, he captured Berlin (something that never should've happened, we should have taken Berlin), Stalin was never brought down, he died. Reagan won the two largest landslides in history. Reagan brought down the Soviet Union. Reagan would have won four terms and then some if it weren't for term limits. Term limits did not exist when FDR was in office. A survey proved that the people still favored Reagan on a landslide scale in 1988 and if he could run they would elect him again.

[PD]

 I suggest all you dems read Ann Coulter's books "Slander" and "Treason". I also Recommend Sean Hannity's book "Let Freedom Ring". I could recommend a hundred more, but I won't waste my time and post space because I know none of you liberals will ever even make an effort at it.

[PD]

You know, Hannity is fantastic on TV and radio, but the book was boring. Coulter was very entertaining, but she says some ridiculous things.

Reagan did not win the two greatest landslides in history. Washington was unanimous- twice- and one other early one, I think it was Monroe, would have been unanimous but one elector switched his vote so only Washington would be unanimous. '84 was the best in modern history, but '80 was smaller than '72, '36, and perhaps '64. (Correction- '80 was 3 electoral votes bigger ;andslide than '64.) Also, electoral success does not necessarily mean greatness. Look at Nixon.

All that being saig, I think Reagan was a great president, bu not as good as, at the least, Washington and Lincoln. I do think he was our best post-World War president.

Here is another example of my own party members turning on me. Well, I think Reagan was the greatest of all.

[PD]

You know, Hannity is fantastic on TV and radio,

I tried listening to his radio show and 90% consists of Hannity extolling his humility.  The show moves at a speed that is 10x too slow for me.  He also ducks serious questions by those on the other side.  His show time also consists on 50% commericials.

I have never listened to his radio show, but I do listen to Rush Limbaugh, along with a few other conservative talk show hosts that are only here in CA. Those commercials, like they are here, pay for the program. They have to be there, otherwise there would be no show.

[PD]

Well, for incumbant President Carter to lose to Reagan wiing only 49 votes for his re-election shows that many wanted a change.

THANK YOU!

[PD]

I hardly think I turned on you by pointing out that Reagan simply did not factually, historically, provably win the greatest landslides in history. '84 was very impressive. So was '80. But they are not what they aren't.

Acctually, Reagan won in 84 with the highest vote EV vote total in history, so technically,that would be the biggest landslide in history.

THANK YOU!

[PD]

No offense, but FDR was an idiot. I admit he did a few good things, but he was repeatedly informed of Soviet infiltration of our government and said that it could not happen. He would not believe it. He was even shown papers and proof. Well, it turned out that there were thousands of Soviet spys holding high government offices in our government. That was proved after his death. A bunch of them were his personal assistants and advisors. At one point, one of his vice presidents (not Truman, I forget his name) was a Soviet spy. Not too many people know this information because the majority of it was kept secret for a long time. He was shaking hands with Stalin and in his mind he was saying "I'm so glad that Russia and America can get along." At the exact moment, Stalin was standing there and in his head saying "Sucker." FDR would just not believe it.

He did only a few good things?  Please.  He brought the country out of the GREAT depresson, he brought down Hitler and eventually Stalin, and won four election decisively.  Reagan is nowhere near FDR.

That's garbage.  FDR sank the country deeper into the depression.  He set ridiculous price and wage controls, gave the unions power to do just about whatever they wanted, he destroyed vast amounds of crops and livestock to raise farm prices when untold millions around the country were STARVING!  This man was not a good president.  He was a complete moron who didn't know the first thing about economics.  He blamed investors for the Great Depression and continued to "punish" them with his policies throughout his time as president.  He regulated every facet of business and effectively killed any new business ventures through his meddling.  At best his policies simply made it hard for new jobs to be created, but more than likely his policies destroyed thousands, perhaps even millions of jobs.  Then of course there's FDR's constant trampling of the Constitution.  He governed by Executive Order, packed the courts with other incompetent New Deal sympathizers, and put the Japanese into internment camps.  What about this man deserves respect.  He was a fraud, a failure ("A miserable failure...) who rivals Johnson, Carter, and Nixon for the title of WORST PRESIDENT EVER!  

THANK YOU! MY POINT EXACTLY! Though I do like Nixon.

[PD]

Please do NOT attack FDR like that... I realise that he was left wing and that certain Republicans hate for that but please be serious.
He did NOT drag America deeper into the Depression, and although the New Deal did not end the Depression, it made it hurt less and did a lot to help poor people.
I wish we had it over here and not the uncaring incompetence of the National Government.

I've never been a fan of revisionist history, it's more about selling more books than actually informing people about the past. Not that I'm a big fan of Whig or Marxist interpretations either...
Post-Revisionism can be good though

With the way you attack our people, we will attack FDR anyway we please.

[PD]

Perhaps, but selecting a communist apologist like Henry Wallace as VP of the US was unforgivable.

True, though the whole Democratic Party was full of Communist sympathizers at that time.  The thirties and fourties were a frightfully left-wing period.  

The whole democratic party is still full of communist sympathizers, if not communists themselves. This is still a frightfully left-wing period. The only difference is that they have gotten worse.