Reagan spent his entire life standing up to the bully. From boyhood on, he interposed himself between the bully and the innocent. He stood up to the bullies in his schools. He stood up to the Communists in Hollywood, and to the coercive unions. He stood up to the student radicals and their abettors. He stood up to the Soviets.
He simply stood up.
In the world today are a lot of bullies to stand up to: al-Qaeda, the mullahs, the North Koreans, the Chinese Communists, the Castro brothers, Chávez. John McCain will almost certainly do it. Barack Obama will almost certainly not.
That’s one reason — probably the biggest reason — I’m voting for McCain on Tuesday.
I love that about Reagan, and it strikes me as a key difference between politicians I can admire and those I despise. Some bully and a few stand up against 'em.
Fred Kagan points out that National Security is still the most important issue in the election. The Depression brought on the rise of militant Japan.... National Catholic Register (possibly subs. only, not sure) makes the point the economy is never a really great reason to vote for President.
George W. Bush drew votes from “cut spending” voters, but spending skyrocketed during his time in office. Bill Clinton got votes from “higher taxes, more spending” voters, but taxes and entitlement spending were both cut while he was president.
The difference? The Congress. George W. Bush had a spending-happy Congress. He cooperated with them. Bill Clinton had a “Contract With America” Congress that pledged to balance the budget. He cooperated, too.
If the federal budget is largely out of the president’s hands, the economy at large is even less controllable. That’s not to say a president’s economic stance is unimportant — it’s just that you won’t get much return on your voting investment if the economy is your single issue.
By the same token, it's not really "Bush's war," either, since Congress has appropriated funds for it every step of the way.
An editor who's read the Constitution! I'm impressed. Now if we could only get our presidential candidates to quit telling us they're going to clean-up Wall Street. Really? And what power does the President have over Wall Street, precisely? That must be in the little-read section 5 of Article II.
