2
   

An Intellectuals appraisal of Reagans legacy

 
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2004 06:14 pm
foxfrye, there is nothing that I admire about the current man vacating the office of presidency right now so I wil not be padding anything positive. I would have just as much trouble coming up something positive to say about hitler, would that make me hate filled because I couldn't find anything positive to say about him? I don't think so.

The only thing I can remember about reagan was his trickle down theory. I didn't pay too much attention to politics back then, so I guess I am guilty yet again of being hate filled. I liked his wife, does that count? I also liked george bush the first, for some reason I found him likeable when not too many other people did. There are several republicans other than mccain who I like; this one guy who is the head of the intelligence commitee, I think his name is Warner or something like that and I thought most of the republicans on the 9/11 commission were fair and reasonable. I disagree a lot with pat bucannan (?spell) but I find him likeable most of the time and a lot more so than I do his sister.

Anyway, if it pleases you to think I or anyone else is hatefilled, so be it. I find you hard to deal with. So, what does all that have anything to do with anything?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2004 06:42 pm
Quote:
"Whatever else history may say about me when I'm gone, I hope it will record that I appealed to your best hopes, not your worst fears; to your confidence rather than your doubts. My dream is that you will travel the road ahead with liberty's lamp guiding your steps and opportunity's arm steadying your way."--Ronald Reagan


Quote:
Ronald Reagan became one of the most popular presidents in history. His economic policies, known as "Reaganomics", resulted in a drop in the inflation rate from 13.5% in 1980 to under 5% by 1982 and throughout the rest of his presidency. His commitment to freedom and opposition to the spread of communism resulted in end of the Cold War in 1989. He maintained a firm and determined stance against terrorism, exemplified by American retaliation against Libya for the death of Americans in a Berlin discotheque in 1986. ("Today we have done what we had to do.") His quick wit endeared him to many, such as when his age was called into question during the presidential debates in 1984, and he remarked "I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent's youth and inexperience."


http://www.m1-garand.com/Reagan.htm

George Will:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5146340/site/newsweek/

Pope John Paul:
http://www.swissinfo.org/sen/swissinfo.html?siteSect=143&sid=4983826

Thanks from a grateful country: Peggy Noonan
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/


Other tribute and fact pages:

http://www.jaboobie.com/reagan/

http://mwhodges.home.att.net/1980-88.htm

http://www.orthodoxnet.com/reagan/

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/reagan_obit
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2004 06:50 pm
Revel, I have no quarrel with you or Edgar or anybody else. I happen to love and admire President Reagan and I choose to defend him when others choose to smear his legacy and his good name.

I also feel the current occupant of the White House is deserving of respect and should be acknowledged for the good things that happen during his watch. And I choose to defend him when others choose to smear him unfairly.

Why is it that some can say all kinds of cruel and hateful things about conservatives, neo-cons etc. and I can be personally singled out for all manner of criticism re my opinions and my posts, and that is presumably fair. But if I give my opinion about liberals who constantly post negative, mean, and often erroneous statements about whomever and I name no names, that is is seen as a personal attack?

Excuse me, but I fail to see the logic here.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2004 08:32 pm
Another great Reagan legacy piece from the New York times - I[m posting the whole thing as the only link I have is to AOL:


An Impact Seen, and Felt, Everywhere

By Todd S. Purdum, The New York Times


WASHINGTON (June 6) - His name adorns National Airport, a California freeway, a stamp in Grenada, a ballistic missile test site in the Marshall Islands, a suite at the St. Regis Hotel in Los Angeles and a massive office building here dedicated to international trade. But if you seek Ronald Reagan's real monument, just look around.

Mr. Reagan's legacy lives in the career of another underrated actor turned governor of California, one born in Middle Europe and not the Middle West, who is now ruling Sacramento with a blend of charm and flint. It endures in a Supreme Court and federal judiciary still led by Mr. Reagan's conservative appointees.

It flourishes in a federal government that never got as small as Mr. Reagan might have wished, but in which the prevailing economic debate is now almost always over how much to cut taxes, not whether. It pulses in a transformed political landscape: in an energized, grass-roots Republican Party; in the first Republican Congress in a half-century; and in a Democratic Party still at pains to deflect and defuse Republican dominance.

Perhaps most of all, Mr. Reagan's legacy prevails in the muscular foreign policy of the current occupant of the White House, who seems far more the spiritual heir to the Reagan revolution than to his own father's presidential policies, and who reacted on Sunday to a question about virulent anti-Americanism in Europe by invoking the man a French headline once dismissed as a "cowboy justicier."

"I believe in a future that is peaceful, based upon liberty," Mr. Bush told the NBC anchor Tom Brokaw in an interview broadcast from France, where he was marking the 60th anniversary of D-Day near the site of one of Mr. Reagan's most famous speeches. "And I remember my predecessor, whose life we mourn, Ronald Reagan: they felt the same way about him. Tom, that doesn't mean a fellow like me should change my beliefs. I'm not going to. I'm not trying to be popular. What I'm trying to do is what I think is right."

His Fingerprints on the World

Sources: AP, The New York Times, Reuters, World Book


It was Mr. Reagan's great fortune for most of his life and presidency to be popular, and the outpouring of tributes in the 10 years since Alzheimer's disease left him adrift in a world of his own suggested that his popularity only grew with time. But Mr. Reagan lived long enough to enable many of his old lieutenants, and some more dispassionate chroniclers as well, to argue that he had also been right on some of the bigger questions of his time.

"Ronald Reagan had a higher claim than any other leader to have won the cold war for liberty," said his old comrade Lady Thatcher, the former British prime minister. "And he did it without a shot being fired."

Mr. Reagan's command of details was far from complete. He once set aside briefing books on the eve of an economic summit meeting to watch "The Sound of Music" on television. Mario M. Cuomo, then governor of New York, loved to recount how Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan tried to present him to Mr. Reagan, who interrupted, "You don't have to introduce me to Lee Iacocca!"

His Contemporaries Reflect

Getty Images

"I never had any misgivings about his courage. I never had doubts that if push came to shove, he would do what was needed in the interest of the country." -- George H. W. Bush
· Read More | Audio: Hear More


"President Reagan will be remembered with gratitude as an historic figure whose vision and dedication brought about the end of the cold war." -- Howard Baker, Reagan's chief of staff

AP

"While adhering to his convictions... he was not dogmatic; he was looking for negotiations and cooperation. And this was the most important thing to me: He had the trust of the American people." -- Mikhail Gorbachev, former Soviet president | Read More

"He was a stroke of luck for the world, especially for Europe."
-- Helmut Kohl, former German chancellor

AP

"The president always believed that the Soviet people deserved a better system... And he was going to make it happen not by war, but by peace, by showing the power of democracy."
-- Colin Powell, Reagan's security adviser
Audio: Hear More

"He taught me that success is never final nor defeat fatal, as long as you have the courage to act on principle and take the heat." -- Bob Dole, former Republican senator | Read More


Getty

"To have achieved so much, against such odds, and with such humor and humanity, made Ronald Reagan a truly great American hero."
-- Margaret Thatcher, former prime minister of Britain

Sources: AP, Reuters, TIME, The New York Times

After it was revealed that officials in his administration had sold arms to Iran as a ransom for American hostages, then used the proceeds to help the Nicaraguan contras, Mr. Reagan only reluctantly acknowledged that it had happened, and a commission he had appointed himself concluded that his detached management style had failed him.

But most of the time, his command of direction was crystal clear.

Stuart Spencer, a political consultant who was with Mr. Reagan from the very beginning of his campaign for governor of California in 1965, recalled in a telephone interview how decisive his old boss could be.

"It was a pretty bold act to fire 11,000 air controllers," Mr. Spencer said. "At the time he said Russia was an evil empire, I know a lot of us were really nervous about it. He cut income taxes across the board 25 percent, named a woman to the Supreme Court. Those were all pretty bold decisions. Not today, maybe, but then. And he made them."

Cass R. Sunstein, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, said Mr. Reagan's was "the most important presidency of the 20th century, with one obvious exception": Franklin D. Roosevelt. Last year, Professor Sunstein wrote in The American Prospect that Mr. Reagan's appointments had left the federal courts fundamentally different from their predecessors just two decades ago.

"What was then in the center is now on the left; what was then in the far right is now in the center; what was then on the left no longer exists," he wrote. And in a telephone interview on Sunday, he added that Mr. Reagan's influence on federal regulation was just as pervasive, because of an executive order that required all federal agencies to do a cost-benefit analysis of major proposed rules, and to make that the basis of the rule-making, to the extent allowed by law.

"That has redefined the practices of the executive branch," Professor Sunstein said. "Clinton didn't fundamentally change it."

Reagan's Influence?

AP

The former president's death has already had an impact on the 2004 campaign. How much of a role will his legacy ultimately play? Details

Similarities Between Bush, Reagan

Indeed, Bill Clinton, a founder of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council - created to reign in his party's most liberal instincts - was among the first to recognize Mr. Reagan's sweeping political legacy. Later, as president, Mr. Clinton successfully pressed for an overhaul of the federal welfare system and famously, if prematurely, declared, "The era of big government is over."

"Ever since Ronald Reagan, Washington has been playing on his side of the field," said Kenneth Duberstein, Mr. Reagan's last White House chief of staff. "Everything that has taken place since the 80's virtually has been on Ronald Reagan's territory."

It was Mr. Reagan, a New Deal Democrat turned Goldwater conservative, who lured disaffected blue-collar Democrats to vote Republican in the first place, and his upbeat personality was a crucial factor. He once cut off debate among his advisers over how much credit to give the Rev. Jesse Jackson for negotiating Syria's release of a downed American Air Force pilot by saying, "The only way we can lose is if we're not gracious."

Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky, recalled how Mr. Reagan had introduced him at a rally in his long-shot campaign for the Senate 20 years ago as "my good friend Mitch O'Donnell," then continued unfazed when he realized the error, showing "how completely Teflon he was."

Mr. McConnell, now the Senate's No. 2 Republican, added: "He had an enormous impact on a lot of us, and our developing philosophies. I became a more solid conservative, and a more conviction-oriented politician, as the result of his example. He demonstrated that you don't have to flip-flop back and forth, and that you can take an unpopular position."

Newt Gingrich, whose Republican takeover of the House of Representatives in 1994 was made possible by Mr. Reagan's years of toil, told Fox News that Mr. Reagan had taught him "cheerful persistence." Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, who served Mr. Reagan as national security adviser, told CBS News that Mr. Reagan had taught him "how to be calm in the middle of a crisis; how to set a clear vision; how to use the skills you have as a communicator to push that vision forward."

If Richard M. Nixon's demons reflected a darker side of late-20th-century American conservatism, Mr. Reagan's relentless optimism projected the sun. Some of the words he used to inspire the nation and the world were the work of his speechwriters, but he shaped them meticulously, and he saw with a poet's eye.


More From the New York Times

On his 11th wedding anniversary, in 1963, he wrote his wife, Nancy: "This is really just an 'in between' day. It is a day on which I love you three hundred and sixty-five days more than I did a year ago and three hundred and sixty-five less than I will a year from now. But I wonder how I lived at all for all the three hundred and sixty-fives before I met you."

Mr. Reagan was the first president to have been divorced, and ease with his own children from two marriages often eluded him. But as the national paterfamilias, he transformed his gifts of intimate expression for use on the world's biggest stage.

"People connected to him," Mr. Spencer, the political consultant, said. "Because of his idealism, his vision. He wasn't a shouter. When he went on television, he came into your living room like a neighbor sitting on the couch. He wasn't harassing and haranguing you."

If Mr. Reagan was guided by fixed principles, he was far from inflexible. He adapted his policies to political realities, pressing for arms reductions with the Soviet Union after years of military buildup. He told his former chief of staff and Treasury secretary, James A. Baker, that he "would much rather get 80 percent of what I want than to go over the cliff with my flag flying," as Mr. Baker put it on CNN on Sunday.

See headlines in just 90 seconds from ABC News.


Historians will long debate the impact of the huge federal budget deficits run up under Mr. Reagan's leadership, the efficacy of his tax cuts, the effects of his administration's involvements in Central America, his seeming indifference to civil rights, the environment and the plight of the poor. But few now seem likely to quarrel with his own assessment, given in his farewell address from the Oval Office on Jan. 11, 1989.

"My friends, we did it," he said then. "We weren't just marking time. We made a difference."


06-07-04 11:22 EDT


http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20040607110609990001
0 Replies
 
Radikal
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2004 03:53 am
!
Yeah I hated Reagan!!! He was an evil, vile, sadistic azzhole. I hated all of his policies. He killed people and didn't give a damn! He caused a lot of misery for millions of people, while he fed the rich more and more. He should have been convicted of War crimes and sent to Leavenworth for the rest of his pitiful life becasue he viollated the Constitution and sponsored Death Squads that killed the poor and innocent. I am now not happy that his body is finally dead. He was dead a long time ago. I stopped hating him when I found out that his brain was dead. It's sort of stupid to hate dead people, aint it? If there is a Hell, he is there and frying as he should be. Is that enough hate for you Right Wing, arrogant, maggots?

Smile
0 Replies
 
Radikal
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2004 05:15 am
!
The real Ronnie.

http://www.alternet.org/stuff/unflatteringron.gif



Have a nice day. Laughing
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2004 05:43 am
Foxfyre wrote:
Revel, I have no quarrel with you or Edgar or anybody else. I happen to love and admire President Reagan and I choose to defend him when others choose to smear his legacy and his good name.

I wasn't smearing his good name but merely pointing out facts, not everything he did was very good for the country.

I also feel the current occupant of the White House is deserving of respect and should be acknowledged for the good things that happen during his watch. And I choose to defend him when others choose to smear him unfairly.

I don't feel he is smeared nor is it unfair but entireley deserving.

Why is it that some can say all kinds of cruel and hateful things about conservatives, neo-cons etc. and I can be personally singled out for all manner of criticism re my opinions and my posts, and that is presumably fair. But if I give my opinion about liberals who constantly post negative, mean, and often erroneous statements about whomever and I name no names, that is is seen as a personal attack?

It is because when you made your statement about hate filled liberals it was directly after some made negative comments concerning reagan the implication being that those that made the comments are just hate filled rather than having any legitmate comments to make. You make a habit of doing that. On the other hand usually when we say neocons or whatever it is a general statement about the group said to explain why they vote or feel such and such a way and not said in a direct reply to a debate.

Like if I said all neocons think less government means more freedom when really it means less choice for the little guy with less power than the rich and powerful; that would not be a direct reply to a debate. On the other hand if someone was saying right before me that he believes that less government is better for everyone and I turned around and said, all conservatives are greedy that does make it personal. I might not explain it too well, but it is the best that I can do.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2004 08:22 am
Re: !
Radikal wrote:
Yeah I hated Reagan!!! He was an evil, vile, sadistic azzhole. I hated all of his policies. He killed people and didn't give a damn! He caused a lot of misery for millions of people, while he fed the rich more and more. He should have been convicted of War crimes and sent to Leavenworth for the rest of his pitiful life becasue he viollated the Constitution and sponsored Death Squads that killed the poor and innocent. I am now not happy that his body is finally dead. He was dead a long time ago. I stopped hating him when I found out that his brain was dead. It's sort of stupid to hate dead people, aint it? If there is a Hell, he is there and frying as he should be. Is that enough hate for you Right Wing, arrogant, maggots?

Smile


Obviously you didn't read the title of this thread. This is supposed to be an INTELLECTUAL appraisal...you need the other thread "Reagan was a jerk and I hate him, nyah, nyah, nyah"
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2004 08:44 am
I'm sorry I dissapoint you so much Revel. My comment was in general based on observation of virtually 100% negative opinions expressed by liberals including numerous really hateful comments--see Radikal's post just above--about anything related to the current government, administration, or just about anything any Republican in this century has ever done and about Reagan in particuar at this time. I offered you an opportunity to refute that opinion with facts and you declined.

Had it been one of your (collectively speaking) icons who had just passed away and was being remembered fondly, I think I wouldn't think it kind or proper to smear his memory while the nation grieved. There will be time enough to debate legacy.

Your criticism is directed to me personally. My comment was directed to nobody in particular. If you took it personally, does that means I was correct? If not, tell me why. Otherwise, lets just move on please.
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2004 10:25 am
The following is an article that I saved because it was of particular significance to me at the time. I think that the author was dead on in expressing one of the changes our country went through during the Reagan Bush era.
Quote:
Subject: Remember when we loved our jobs?

Ref:Abstract of a column in THE PALM BEACH POST (June19, 1991) by Clinton C. Glen, reprinted from THE BALTIMORE SUN

You have no doubt heard of the term VALUE ADDED. Well, this is about VALUE LOST, not of a product or service but to the workplace. The old work ethic is gone, the deeply rooted one that almost everybody, at some level, would like to believe still exists, the simple equation: "Let's make a deal. I will give you an honest day's work. I will be loyal, dependable, dedicated and true to the company, in return for which I will ask you to give me a measure of security, occasional promotions, incremental raises and eventually a retirement dinner and a watch."

That ethic has run deep in the American work culture. It will not be quickly erased or easily forgotten, but as a force it is gone.

A bright young person came to work in an office recently. She was thrilled with her new job, willing and eager to learn. She is gone now. "I really liked this job. I worked hard. Gave it my all. Look what happened!" She said the executive who laid her off told her, "Don't take it personally; it was a business decision." Was she bitter? No, she was disillusioned. She was experiencing VALUE LOST.

This is not a lament that business decisions negatively affect personal lives. In the normal business dynamic, some people are going to be hurt by decisions that are made. The concern here has more to do with the reality of an increasingly intense, spiritless workplace focused strictly on the bottom line.

This did not happen overnight. There never was a declaration that said, "let's do away with the values that make for an affirming workplace where people feel good about themselves and the things that they do." That ethic more or less leaked and then hemorrhaged out of the work culture, leaving an ethically anemic context within which to work.

People cannot (or will not) give their all if they believe that a "bottom-line force" will come sweeping through their offices today or tomorrow and blow them away with the disclaimer: "Don't take it personally. It is a business decision." People cannot "run scared" all the time with respect to this most important feature of human life.

We once had a relatively simple work ethic or value; at least we believed that we did. We acted as if it was in place, and to a large extent it was. Now we are in the midst of complexity. Nothing is clear. The old work assumptions do not hold. The value is lost, and it is not yet clear what the new value system will be.

There is no new work ethic to present. We have to stay in our state of complexity until some simple, obvious ethic or value begins to emerge. And it will. Something as important for human beings as work, simply must be "felt" as valuable.


Note: This is addressed to nobody in particular, is not meant to be hateful, just a reminder of what was or is.
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2004 10:33 am
All I know is that Reagan got the job by committing treason, then went down hill.........
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2004 10:36 am
Doesn't even relate to Reagan or neocons..........

Main Entry: 1in·tel·lec·tu·al Pronunciation Guide
Pronunciation: |intl|ekch(w)l, -ksh-
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French & Latin; Middle French intellectuel, from Latin intellectualis, from intellectus intellect + -alis -al
1 a : of, belonging to, or relating to the intellect or its use : REFLECTIVE, REASONING <satire is an intellectual weapon -- Herbert Read> <intellectual powers> <enabling them to function on the intellectual plane -- Bruce Bliven b.1889> <began his intellectual career as a mathematician -- F.S.C.Northrop> -- contrasted with animal b : having its source in or being preeminently guided by the intellect as distinguished from emotion or experience : RATIONAL <has a tremendous intellectual sympathy for oppressed people -- Green Peyton> <think of such playwrights as coldly intellectual -- E.R.Bentley> <in no sense an intellectual or metaphysical painter -- Herbert Read> <the most subtle and intellectual edifice ever made by man -- Weston La Barre> <disseminated the severe and intellectual Florentine style -- National Gallery of Art> c : calling the intellect into play : requiring use of the intellect <as abstruse and intellectual as a chess problem> <there should be a distinction ... between manual or copying work and intellectual work -- K.C.Wheare>
2 obsolete : apprehensible by the intellect alone : IMMATERIAL, SPIRITUAL, IDEAL
3 a archaic : endowed with the power to know and reason : INTELLIGENT b (1) : devoted to matters of the mind and especially to the arts and letters : given to study, reflection, and speculation especially concerning large or abstract issues <sort of the intellectual type, but most of the gang are real people -- W.H.Whyte> <maintain a person can be intellectual and not be intelligent -- Jean Stafford> (2) : engaged in activity requiring preeminently the use of the intellect : engaged in mental as distinguished from manual labor; especially : engaged in creative literary, artistic, or scientific labor <intellectual workers should be able to deduct from their income tax the amounts which they must spend for books, documents, research work, and materials in general -- Report: (Canadian) Royal Commission on National Development> (3) : reflecting, indicating, or suggesting devotion to matters of the mind : indicating or associated with a studious reflective temper or large mental endowment <had a high intellectual forehead -- Edmund Wilson>
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2004 11:16 am
Well Revel, Radikal, and BillW sure affirm my opinion in their own way Smile

Mesquite. I agree that it is true that American corporations became unconscionably soulless during the 1980's, but that can't be hung on either Reagan or the mostly Democrat controlled Congress during the 80's. It continued all through the 1990's as well and is just now beginning to correct itself.

The phenomenon started in the 1940's, was intensified during the 1970's when Corporate America achieved much of the government-sponsored powers that it now enjoys. I think through the vision and courageous leadership of a few corporate moguls--Starbucks comes to mind for instance--the pendulum is now slowly swinging back to a recognition that people are important and to diminish their importance weakens the corporation and diminishes profits.

Government through most of the 20th century has been pretty gutless in dealing with the more serious problems.

Here is a fairly good history of how some of it all came about.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Zinn/Carter_PeoplesHx.html
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2004 11:39 am
Sure doesn't help when our top governmental officials have major ties to Corporate America. Hate to name names....

Reagan was a popular president because he got shot, and lived. His numbers were way down previous to his attempted assisination. Many voters remembered the horrors of Kennedy's death and were overjoyed to see Reagan pull through.

You see, the reason you love him so much is not that he was a great president. It's that he was a great ACTOR. He ACTED like people thought a president should act in public. His policies, however, were terrible for our economy and set the stage for the terrorism that we have now.

Look deeper than his surface image.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2004 11:55 am
I have studied the history intensely Cyclop, and look forward for the histories with more distance to them to be written. I believe Reagan will go down in history as one of America's greats; one of the world's greats. And there was sufficient distance (3 years) between him getting shot and the next election that any sympathy generated by the shooting would have been forgotten or at least seriously blunted. He carried 49 of 50 states. You don't 'fool' that many Americans--you have to produce. He did.
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2004 12:12 pm
I think Reagan's death is a positive for both sides.

The liberals get to figuratively celebrate and dance on his grave, and the republicans get to figuratively piss on his grave by using his death to try to morph Bush into Reagan.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2004 12:16 pm
I don't know any Republicans who are doing that though Kicky. Do you?
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2004 12:25 pm
yeap, lots
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2004 12:33 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
I don't know any Republicans who are doing that though Kicky. Do you?


Newt Gingrich for one, last night on Fox.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2004 12:37 pm
Hmmm missed that one and the summary isn't posted on the website yet. But I'll check on it later. I'm impressed that you watched Fox Smile
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/20/2024 at 11:05:48