Going to see the President of U.S. today

He’s coming to Fort Bend County today. Grandma is taking my 11 year old son to see him speak. Lucky dude gets out of school early for the occasion.

Traffic should be knarly around Sugar Land here today. For once I’m glad I’m going into Houston for inspections.

I took my kids to see President Reagan a few years back (1984). It was an experience for them that seems to become more and more important to them as the years pass.


I attended a speech from President Clinton,the only U.S. president that I have seen.

You should really go with your son!Regardless of what you think of the President.

Reagan was the first president I ever voted for :smiley: (I was 18 at the time).

Just thought I’d share :wink:

First president I ever saw in person was John Kennedy. I was a senior in highschool when he came through my town. It was an incredible experience, especially considering what followed.

I loved Reagan. :slight_smile:

Got just as emotional about him passing as Mr.Rogers. :slight_smile:

Same here.

Being a Navy guy at the time how could I have voted for anyone else?

We could sure use him in office, today.

Fooooooooooor sure.

James, Wendy, you both sound like you don’t support President Bush right now. And what do you think Reagan would be doing differently? Did he not hammer Grenada, Panama with suspect and controversial legal authority? Did he not approve of and implement the Iran/Contra deals? Don’t get me wrong, I’m a strong Reagan supporter as well but he was no saint, come on.

I did not say that, at all, Mike.

As much as I support Bush, he’s no Reagan conservative is he?

When it came to handling the Middle East (in which Iraq and Iran were major players) Reagan did what he had to do to get the job done, and quite successfully. Bush is doing much the same, with less than an immediate result.

We live in an age where people of the world have come to accept the fact that United States of America has the most powerful military in the history of our planet — and they know that, militarily, they cannot defeat us…so…instead of waging war in the conventional sense, they chip away at the resolve of the citizens through a variety of heinous and cowardly acts that make the CNN headline for the day.

Reagan was more skillful at keeping people focused on who the bad guys are. President Bush lacks those communicative skills but still has the resolve to see us through.

Jim, you’re right, my brain was saying “sounds like”, my fingers were typing “say”. My bad! I’ll edit & re-word that.


I support President Bush, I just happen to be a very big fan of Reagan. He was a brilliant man and not everyone realizes that.

Do yo uremeber how the “press” gave Reagan so very little praise? Unfortuantely that continues today.

And now we have the “press”, entertainers and let’s not forget the Dems. doing the same thing to Bush, especailly with regards to his intellegence.

Does anyone really believe that he is as he is portrayed?

Nope. I think he takes it with quite a bit of grace though. The media is completely corrupt and run by special interests nowadays. So it is not somewhere I pay attention to when looking for commentary on the President.

Bush is not a Conservative at All, he’s far, far to the Right of Conservatism.

Read the Military Commisions Act of 2006 for an Example of How Far Right of Right he’s gone:

"Subsection 4(b) (26) of section 950v. of HR 6166 - Crimes triable by military commissions - includes the following definition.
“Any person subject to this chapter who, in breach of an allegiance or duty to the United States, knowingly and intentionally aids an enemy of the United States, or one of the co-belligerents of the enemy, shall be punished as a military commission under this chapter may direct.”
For an individual to hold an allegiance or duty to the United States they need to be a citizen of the United States. Why would a foreign terrorist have any allegiance to the United States to breach in the first place?

Notice how ofthen Republicans say that any disagreement with Bush Policy is Giving Aid the “The Enemy”?

There’s another nifty little part in this Bill that makes it Illegal for the Supreme Court or any Judge or person to challenge the Constitutionality of Bush’s Torture Bill…and then there is the Destruction of Habeus Corpus…

If you compare the powers given to Bush under this Bill with those given to Hitler under the Enabling Act of 33’, you’ll see where the REpublicans got their wording for this Bill…

Of course someone said "“The government will make use of these powers only insofar as they are essential for carrying out vitally necessary measures…The number of cases in which an internal necessity exists for having recourse to such a law is in itself a limited one.”…Was it Bush< Hitler, or both?

When I remarked, earlier, that we could use President Reagan in office today, it was his ability to lead - and to communicate to those he leads - as to who the enemy is and why we are fighting.

Here is an example of that skill:

Come on, even Bush’s handlers will tell you that their guy is an awful speaker. It isn’t about portrayal - it’s about how you come across when you speak and how seriously you take your elivery and public persona.

If you speak eloquently, and have a good delivery (Reagan, Clinton) then your words have more impact.

If you make jokes about your own inability to speak well, and consistently wind up in “rhetorial cul de sacs” (my favorite Rove-ism for describing Bush’s speaking ability), then you will be viewed as someone who less sharp.

Reagan did not help his own cause in terms of his image with quips about signs on his deask that say “Reagan slept here”. He went for folksy and charming intentionally (which was part of his mass appeal), but could also transition to powerful and confident. He had great range.