Yeah I remember the punk Ronald Reagan!

While governor, Reagan sent the National Guard to Berkeley to quell protests over People's Park. One student was killed by gunfire and a National Guard helicopter dropped tear gas on the entire campus.

Reagan opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the 1965 Voting Rights Act, the 1968 Fair Housing Act and a California ballot measure that outlawed racial discrimination in housing.

"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help."---Ronald Reagan

Pretty true quote though!

If it wasn't for the military race, thanks to Reagan, we would probably be a communist state or the Cold War would still be in effect thanks to the anti-war, peace people.

The left will try anything to make it seem like Reagan was of no use...but the facts and Reagan's actions to stand up to communist leaders is something you can't rewrite. Sorry

Yes it is true considering all the retirees i've been supporting (Social Security) I have not received a thank you letter from anyone.

Wow, come on now. That's pretty rediculous. If its one thing I most deeply despise about American Presidential history myth, pervasive in American culture, is the complete glorification of Reagan (or perhaps the extreme overrating of Lincoln).

The whole idea that Reagan was somehow dismembered the Soviet Union single-handedly by his 'magical foreign policies' and "smooth persuasive rhetorical sentiment" (which actually was just dumbed-down condesending speech) has been completely blown out of porportions by the right of America, and especially by the Republican Party and its television and radio hacks.

Not to say that he didn't have anything to do with the Soviet Union's ultimate demise, but his input was very very little compared to larger forces at work. The end of the Cold War can be virtually all credited to Mikhail Gorbachev himself, as well as other internal soviet factors; including Yeltsin. However, the dismemberment of the Soviet Union can be mostly traced back to Gorbachev's early reforms. He undermined communism and failed to build a new system to replace it, and subsequently unleashed powerful forces of change that he could not direct or control.

At this time it is true that Reagan stood up against communism, its ideals, and its leaders. But all American presidents were doing this during the Cold War. The idea that the end of the Cold War is directly related to Reagan, and somehow it wouldn't have happened be it without him as President...well that's just factually, and historically inacurate.

He was in the right place at the right time. The defeat of the Soviet Union in the Cold War, and America's prevailing can be just as much or even more credited to past presidents. While saying that "if it weren't for Reagan, we would be speaking Russian", is factually inacurate; its quite safe to say that "if it weren't for Kennedy, we wouldn't exist today." Kennedy had more to do with the preservation of peace, prosperity, and America's ideas than Reagan ever did. I'm not saying this out of some kind of partial political conjecture, but out of the annals of history. I could give a rat's ass about the Democratic or Republican Parties, I'm looking at history from a factual and impartial perspective.

Although the fact that the end of the Cold War was mostly due to the Soviet Union's own internal problems and politicians might not sound appealing, dramatic, or heroic; its the truth. The need for somekind of single American figurehead who served as the 'hand of prevailing democracy' and dismantled the Soviet Union saving perhaps the lives of many, is a pretty simple and imature outlook on history. The end of the Cold War was done by many many people, not by one hansom hero which perhaps the movie and fiction culture might having you wanting.

Actually, you can switch out presidents during time of war; however, bush holds FULL POWER to elect to stay until the war is finished. We can also look at history and see that elections have been held many times during wars, both declared and undeclared: 1812 (War of 1812); 1864 (Civil War); 1900 (Philippine-American War); 1944 (World War II); 1952 (Korean War); 1964, 1968, 1972 (Vietnam War); 2004 (Second Gulf War).

I was over there...for a total of three years during this wanker's power. Let me tell you before I receive any bush lover comments; I am most likely the largest ANTI-BUSH person that anyone will find. He killed members of other's family, sends us to war without proper equipment or people, he gives us horrid rules of engagement and basically makes us help a country that we are fighting against. I don't like it and the sad thing is...everyone (in whole) tends to forget the we the people have (well are supposed to) more power than he could ever have...if not, we would just be back to square one.

Good lord, you must think that Bush is practically God - all those powers you ascribe to him!

Or maybe he's Satan.

Who's to know?

But he certainly seems to be border-line omnipotent!

Looking at the current situation, he's defying his own party and the democrats who have a majority in congress for this "surge".

Snide sarcasm does not erase the fact that Bush IS the reason for our current status in Iraq, and his unwillingness to change it will be his legacy.

In 2006, you'll see both democrats and republicans stepping over themselves to agree that the war in Iraq is futile and a new plan is needed. And do you want to place bets on how successful candidates will be if they say they want to keep troop levels the same, or increase them???

We have about as much chance of him coming back into office as we do of Bin Laden suddenly turning himself in, next to nothing. If he does, it's his head on the proverbial pike. We have laws, and it's one thing to tap someone's phone without a warrant, but another to usurp the highest position in the government. It's treason in my mind, but we can rest easy, 'cause it won't happen.

Well, I think we both know that 2006 is over - so I'll assume you're talking about 2008.

And I agree. All politicians are clamoring to get on the "Get Out Of Iraq Now" boat, because it's the popular rage. Whether or not it's the RIGHT thing to do is up for grabs.

For the record, I think Bush & his strategists went into Iraq believing they could - after ousting Saddam - put in place a sort of Marshall Plan II, and have Iraq well on the way to a thriving Democracy by now. Obviously, they were wrong - for many reasons.

What thinkest thou?