Is this the same billhobbs.com that posted an article a few days ago criticizing "the left" for politicizing Reagan's death?

I mean, honestly.

I'm not slandering the man or calling him vile names or, like Ted Rall, writing that I hope he's burning in hell. I simply state a fact that would be a fact if Reagan was not dead: He'd vote for Bush over Kerry.

How is that politicizing his death? I'm politicizing his LIFE and what he stood for - a strong national defense/security/foreign policy posture and tax reductions, which are the cornestones of Bush's administration.

I LOVE THE BUMPER STICKERS. I'M GOING TO ORDER SOME TODAY!

Deborah Orin, Washington Bureau Chief of the New York Post, has a must-read column in today’s edition, titled Reporting for the Enemy. You can read it on my Blog, where I have posted it along with a link to the original article.
For links to news, views, politics, and government, bookmark All Things Political.

serriously Bill -

This does not seem very respectful of president reagan - it's a shameful manipulation of the nation's grief to further Bush's campaign...

But I suppose when you are behind (as Bush is) anything goes...

Anyway, as long as we are shamelessly invoking famous dead people, I've got some suggestions:

Vote for Kerry - FDR Would

Vote for Kerry - JFK Would

Vote for Kerry - MLK Would

Here are some new Bush stickers as well

Vote for Bush - Richard Nixon Would ... Well maybe he wouldn't...

Vote for Bush - Joe McCarthy Would

Vote for Bush - Roy Cohn Would

Vote for Lyndon LaRouche! Any Kaufman would!

bill,

were you planning these stickers before Reagan died?

a,

If Bush is so far "behind," how about a little wager? I put $50 in Bill's tipjar if the French candidate wins and you put $50 in if the pro-America Bush wins? I await your response.

Lance -

Nah - anybody would be a fool to bet on this election yet... Anything can happen and I would rather spend the $50 some other way...

You are, however, currently behind...

That was a fun offer though...

best,

WMS - I was thinking over several ideas for Reagan-themed pro-Bush bumper stickers but hadn't come up with a short enough text until a few days after Reagan died and I thought of the question, "What Would Reagan Do?" I decided instead to go with a slogan that answered that question rather than asked it.

I wonder if FDR or JFK would vote for John Kerry. Hell, I wonder if either of those two would still be Democrats today. I don't think they would recognize the Democratic Party of today. Maybe that's why so many FDR Dems became Reagan Republicans, and why many old school Dems vote for Bush (like Zell Miller).

Say what you will about JFK's personal life or FDR's social policies, both of them were not afraid to recognize and stand up to America's enemies. Far too many on the left have that ability (or will?) today.

"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty."

That statement is diametrically opposed to the modern Democratic Party's foreign policy ideas.

"And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you--ask what you can do for your country."

That statement is diametrically opposed to the modern Democratic Party's domestic agenda.

Oh Cmon Ivan -

Of course FDR and JFK would still be Democrats. Those two leaders were pretty much socialists. They created the big government system that Reagan and the current president seem bent on dismantling. Both leaders envisioned a nationalistic state where government played a large role in ensuring that the needs of all citizens would be met.

They laid the foundation for most of what the Democratic party stands for today - even if the party has lost it's way in some areas (agreed...) Under Clinton the Democratic party did drift… but it was to the right – Clinton mixed JFK with Reagan and that was a mistake.

And I politely disagree with you regarding the JFK quote you site... to me the philosophy espoused by Reagan refuted the JFK's sentiments - under Reagan's leadership, the 1980s became the era of "me first" rather than "us first." It was the era of Gordon Gecko -“greed is good.”

Reagan was a backlash against the idea of self sacrifice for national goals.

BTW - it's OK if you guys want to claim Zell Miller as a Republican - he was never one of us and we don't want him ;-). If he were running for office again, I would send money to his Republican rival... Zell Miller is no more a Democrat than Jim Jeffords was a Republican

a.,

You raise some good points. I disagree, however, that Reagan inspired some backlash against nationalism. I think it was the opposite...Reagan made it cool (for lack of a better word) to feel good about being an American again.

Gordon Gecko was a Hollywood inspired stereotype...ironic given all the Limousine Libs out there today. I think they, not Reagan Republicans, personify the "me first, greed is good" ethos.

It's a little funny to hear a Democrat espouse the idea of self-sacrifice for national goals. Doesn't putting national goals ahead of oneself lead to blinding jingoism the left claims Bush is spearheading? Isn't that dangerous?

JFK also did a little himself to dismantle the nanny state. He ended up cutting the top tax bracket by 20%, although it remained a laughably high 70%.

No, I don't really think JFK would vote Republican today. I do, however, think the Democratic Party has lost its way. It's mired in the politics of gender, class and race. I think the GOP is a party of ideas...strong national defense, personal responsibility, low taxes, small governments, free markets. If you believe in those things, you are welcome under the tent no matter who or what you are.

The Dems seem to see only "types" of people, not ideology. If there is an overarching philosophy to their myriad positions, I can't see it.

Anyway, I brought up FDR and JFK to highlight the shift in the party's ideas about national security. Our country is not perfect, but the left has become fixated on blaming America for all the world's ills. I don't see Senator Kennedy going to Iraq on the eve of war and being used as a propaganda tool by our sworn enemy (ala Jim McDermott and Carl Levin). I don't see FDR giving a fireside chat claiming government officials knew about 9/11 and let it happen to give Halliburton fat contracts (ala Cynthia "soon to make a comeback" McKinney). These are not isolated incidents by extreme elements of the Democratic Party...this has become the core of the Party.

What does it say when nearly twenty Democratic Congressmen (and zero Republicans) quietly sponsor legislaton to bring back the draft in an effort not to bolster our Armed Forces, but to hamstring future Presidents from actually using the Armed Forces?

Social policies are up for debate. I believe in conservative principles, but there are Democrats with solid ideas and arguments. However, when it comes to foreign policy, the current crop of Democrats are shadows of their predecessors, and are clearly wrong.

Hello Ivan -

This is funny - If I understand you correctly, you admire the GREAT DEMOCRATS OF THE PAST for their interventionist approach to foreign affairs, but you disagree with their economic agenda (is that right?).

On the other hand, I admire the social and economic agendas espoused by JFK and LBJ, but I disagree with a lot of their decisions on foreign affairs (i.e. Viet Nam). Instead - I am inspired by "paleoconservative" isolationism (as an ideal anyway). In other words, I like the foreign policy approach espoused by many of the pre Reagan Republicans (for an example, see Bob Dole's 1976 comments about "Democrat Wars).

See the Irony? None of the old ideas about “liberal” and “conservative” really apply the way they used to.

Next point - I think that there has been a terrible trend away from the idea of national service over the past forty years -– but I don’t think that either party can claim to be above it. I think that both conservatives and liberals (in general) are guilty of the “me first” or “my group first” mentality rather than “the nation first.” To me, this is a characteristic of the Baby Boomer generation – which rebelled against the values of the WWII Generation. In general, Baby Boomers of all political stripes have tended to be less nationalistic than their predecessors. Of course there are many exceptions…

However, I would argue that President Reagan successfully capitalized on this characteristic and used it for political advantage. Don’t forget that President Carter lost the 1980 election partially because he campaigned on a platform that asked Americans to sacrifice for the good of the nation. Carter was following in the footsteps of FDR, JFK, LBJ etc… and delivering a message that resonated with WWII era voters but not with Boomers.

Reagan’s anti-government “starve the beast” philosophy was more about getting government off the backs of businesses and voters than it was about sacrifice and nationalism.

I agree with you that the Democratic Party has fragmented in many ways – I think the party was in decline for decades, but that it may be moving towards a greater unity at this point (I hope so…)

Anyway, thanks for your thoughts.

Best,

Whoa, a., I never said they were "Great Democrats," nor did I say I admired them. I merely indicated they showed a greater proclivity to defend American interests abroad. I DO think that is a good thing...feel free to interpret that how you wish.

I wouldn't mind the Dems moving toward a greater unity if the catalyst was a commonality of ideas. However, I think they are uniting out of a common hatred for George Bush, not philosophy.

If Kerry does get elected, what then? I think he'll be largely ineffective, and not just because of a Republican congress (which, to the detriment of maybe all of us, will do him no favors). He won't leave Iraq, which will make the peace activists unhappy. He won't raise taxes (death knell), which will make the rich-haters unhappy. He won't support gay marriage, which will make the gay community unhappy. He won't have the support of the majority of the military. There may be some initial elation among the left that Bush is gone, but that will wear off quickly. Dems will realize they have a guy who believes in...what, again? Who did we just elect? Oh well, he's not Bush....

The Dems need to be "for something," and not just "against Republicans." And a philosophy of different treatment for different groups (white, black, rich, poor, Hispanic, gay, etc) depending on circumstances can't last. The country was founded on equal opportunity, not equal outcome.

Take care and have a good weekend