Not so much...

[ishte]

I saw this picture posted somewhere. Amusing though it might be, I have an answer.

My answer? Not so much, thanks. I really have to wonder at people (even conservatives) who actually think this guy was good for our country. I'm a libertarian, that means I'm fiscally conservative and socially liberal basically, and somewhat isolationist. This guy was supposed to be a conservative? more like he was the opposite of what I believe in. Socially ultra conservative. Fiscally irresponsible and our noses in everyone's business abroad, but almost no attention to what's going on at home. Then at home, peeking into everyone's houses and bedrooms to see what we're doing as individuals, and not paying attention to the important workings of the nation like making sure we stay healthy and wealthy. Is it really necessary for us to be a nation of busybodies? Yah.. .Again... Not so much.

Comments

[marynachaotica.livejournal.com]

I never liked him when he WAS in office...the way I looked at it...if Texas sure as hell didn't want him why would I want him as President? And once he was gone, after fucking up darn near the entire planet, I didn't miss him one single bit.

[spookshow1313.livejournal.com]

I think it was Minnesota somewhere. He didn't commission it - a group of business suits did, if I remember the AP wire story correctly.

And I don't miss him. Or his dad.

Reagan, though? Oh yeah. More than ever. I developed in interest in national/international politics when I was in kindergarten (age 4) after seeing that ubiquitous presidential face calendar in the school library and one of my Chillicothe classmates being a refugee from the Iranian revolution.

I distinctly remember staying up late so I could watch election returns in 1988 and 1992. My favorite TV shows were Murphy Brown and 60 Minutes.

I was a strange kid.

[ishte.livejournal.com]

I agree. Reagan was one of the greatest of American presidents. People who disagree generally don't understand the things he did, or are just parroting back the liberal party line.

I have one friend who claims he was a terrible president and when put to the task of explaining why, she stammers something to the effect that he set women's rights back decades. My response? How? By appointing Sandra Day O'Connor to the Supreme Court? (the very first woman ever to sit on the highest court, who was very much an advocate for women.) By having four cabinet level positions filled by women? By forging a strong alliance with Margaret Thatcher (A woman btw) to support capitalism.

It was Reagan who understood that it government was not the solution, it was the problem. He brought down the soviet union. Yes... some of the things he did to do that ended up having backlash 20 years later. however, what prez has ever made choices that we cant look at in 20 years and go "this is because of that." You know hind sight is 20/20 and presidents have to make a choice THEN. Reagan was a great Libertarian. He said in part: "...I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. ... The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is..." (note, I didn't cut stuff out just to make it sound like he was saying what I was. Just cut some background and history that he gives to support why he makes these statements.)

By the same token, We watched the returns in 92 as well and cheered when Clinton won. And I still agree with those feelings as well. I do not agree with the conservative view of "blame Clinton for everything, including things that happen only weeks after he took office and months after he left office." While modern conservatives fail to let Bush take blame for anything that occurred during his presidency.

It's no small wonder that Obama won. I would have liked to have seen Hilary Clinton... and I do hope she'll run again, since she's not that old. All I can hope for Obama is that a) he gets health care passed, becuase it's too far gone now NOT to have a plan and at this point it must have a public option, or there will still be huge numbers of people without health care who generally cannot get seen when they are sick other than in a VERY cursory way (I have experienced this twice now when I was very sick). and b) does not at the same time grow the government. He has already made talk of making cuts to streamline, so let's hope he actually does it.

It's kind of unfortunate that the congress is so busy right now playing "us and them" that rather than pass ANYTHING that might make the opposition party look like they accomplished anything, they will filibuster and back pedal and dick around until it has to be tabled. Republicans did it during Clinton's years, Democrats were busy doing payback during Bush's years, and now it's back to the Republicans refusing to play nice in case it might look Democrats look good. *rolls eyes*

I'd like to fire the lot, and there seriously need to be term limits. I'd be willing to bet that there would start being some real libertarians elected.

[spookshow1313.livejournal.com]

I was hoping in 1992 that Perot would make at least a decent showing since I thought he had really good ideas, and Clinton already had a reputation as a womanizing scumbag. I do have to give him credit for actually working with Congress during the "Contract with America" era, but I can never forgive him for hiring Janet Reno and the debacles that ensued, along with cutting of military troop strength and "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

As for health insurance, I disagree. I still believe the government can take steps to untangle the mess without mandating a public option, by making competition across state lines feasible and letting individuals be more responsible for their own medical issues by offering more incentives and more accountability and not having Medicare/Medicaid responsible for the "floor" reimbursements (along with cutting down the fraud inherent in the entitlement programs).

Term limits are an awesome idea, along with a paycut. Back in the early days of the Republic, being a public servant required someone who truly wanted to fill that role, because it wasn't prestigious. It downright SUCKED having to travel to the swamp of DC, leaving behind home and family, but it wasn't full-time work, either. Now the growth of government could only be stopped or reversed through an act of God (because a terrorist act might wipe out the people and physical locations that currently run the country, but would create a backlash that would result in even more of a bureaucracy and police state).