As the day on which we celebrate the quarter-century anniversary of the Gipper’s inaugural draws to a close, I reflect on a speech Hugh posts that Presidential Advisor Karl Rove delivered to the Winter Meeting of the Republican National Committee (RNC). That good and sage man noted how the GOP has, within the last 40 years, “gone from a minority party with little influence to one that is broad and inclusive, self-assured and optimistic, forward-leaning and dominant.”

It is entirely fitting that Rove delivered this speech on this day for he focused on the notion that GOP “success springs from our ideas.” For it was under Gipper’s leadership, that ours became the party of ideas. Disparaged by his critics (many of whom similarly disparage the incumbent Republican president) as an intellectual lightweight, Ronald Reagan was a man of ideas who read widely. He studied political philosophy and economics and filled his early speeches, many of which he wrote on his own, with references to our founders and other great thinkers, men who had a vision of the role of government and the institutions needed to protect our freedom and promote our national security.

Let us hope that as we recall Ronald Reagan’s inaugural, we bear in mind that his ideas — and his leadership — helped bring our party back to life after nearly five decades in the minority. And to make sure we don’t return to our minority statuts, our party’s current leaders need to hold to Reagan’s vision and so recover from recent setbacks. If House Republicans took heed of that vision, a vision which helped inspire the Contract with America, the series of policy proposals which helped bring them to power now nearly twelve years ago, they might not now be facing the troubles they are facing. It is a good sign that at least two of those up for House Majority Leader have referenced ideas near and dear to Reagan’s heart in their campaigns. They, like Rove, recognize that ours is a party of ideas.

Contrast Ronald Reagan’s vision, as Rove does, with Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid’s boast last month to a partisan audience. His party, he claimed, had “killed the Patriot Act.” That is, he did not boast of new programs Senate Democrats were promoting, but of one they had obstructed. (And one which has helped make our country more secure.) While he joined other leaders of his party Wednesday in proposing an ethics reform package to address recent lobbying scandals in the nation’s capital, he rebuffed the efforts of a Democratic Senator who put forward “proposal on “‘ethics reform’” . . . that could be bi-partisan:”

Reid told this person that this was the wrong time to be engaged in construtive (sic) “reform” proposals with the other side. He said that this was the time to draw a line and to show how “our side” differed dramatically from “their side.”

Unlike Ronald Reagan who always sought common ground with his ideological adversaries, Harry Reid wishes to focus on differences. As Polipundit‘s Lorie Byrd (one of my sources for this link) puts it: “The Democrat leadership is more concerned with making Bush look bad than in finding solutions.”

(more…)

I don’t like to blog when I’m in a bad mood for I fear that once I start venting in this public forum, it will put me on a slippery slope to projecting my own inner demons — or daily frustrations — onto the world. And while my life is, on the whole good, since last evening, it seems that so many things keep going wrong.

Last night, I left early to see the flick, Transamerica which a number of film-loving friends have recommended highly to me. It’s playing nearby at Laemmle’s Sunset 5 — one of the best places to see independent flicks in LA. But, that great place to see good movies also has perhaps the worst parking lot in the area. And last night, I couldn’t find any parking. (Despite the crowd, they kept the lowest level closed.) After driving around for fifteen minutes or so and realizing that the movie had already started, I headed for the exit where the attendant attempted to charge me for driving around and missing my movie — after I had informed him there was no parking.

Today, driving to the gym, all of a sudden this woman in front of me just stops. Fortunately, I was able to brake in time. She didn’t move and just waited. Finally, despite her failure to put on her turn signal, I realized she wanted to back into the parking spot on the street next to me. But, she couldn’t do it unless I backed up (which I couldn’t do) or changed lanes (which I couldn’t do at that moment). Finally, I was able to maneuver into the left lane. As I a passed this lady, I realized why she had failed to activate her turn signal. With one hand on the wheel and the other holding her cell phone, she had no free limb left to click it.

(more…)

Instead of addressing the points in my posts, one critic of this blog frequently demands that I address the latest New York Times story critical of the Bush Administration, almost always one based on leaks from left-leaning government bureaucrats with an ideological axe to grand. Sometimes they think this blog doesn’t exist for us to make our points and then for readers to use the comments section to discuss and debate, but for Republican-hating readers to bait us into discussing the issues which interest them.

To be sure, I welcome debate and discussion of many issues, not limited to those I post on. (As I have shown in various e-mail (& IM) exchanges with readers). I’m not, however, going to answer challenges from critics who reply to our posts by badmouthing the president or insulting us and then demand that we discuss an article unrelated to the post they have either refused to consider or whose points they have misrepresented in their comments.

Not only that. Given the increased bias the New York Times, I am becoming less and less likely to take seriously some of its reporting, particularly that critical of the Bush Administration. While some of its reporting remains excellent and oftentimes unrivaled by other newspapers, many of its pieces read as if they were written not by journalists but by left-wing editorialists.

These reporters showed their cards in a piece on the Barrett investigation (into wrongdoing in the Clinton Administration) in Wednesday’s paper. Just like its series of articles on the President’s national security policy, this one was also based on a leak, but not a leak from someone whose agenda is favored by the Times. In the article, the reporters felt it incumbent upon themselves to make known that (and the editor saw fit to include): “A copy of the report was obtained by The New York Times from someone sympathetic to the Barrett investigation who wanted his criticism of the Clinton administration to be known.” The Times thus implied, as Powerline’s John Hinderaker puts it “leaker was no whistle-blower and no patriot; just a partisan with an axe to grind.” John notes further:

But after the Times has printed dozens (hundreds, probably) of stories critical of the Bush administration based on leaks by Democratic bureaucrats, we’re still waiting for the paper to write: “A copy of the report was obtained by The New York Times from someone sympathetic to the Democrats’ position who wanted his criticism of the Bush administration to be known.” The day that explanation appears, Beelzebub will be sending out for mittens and a fur coat.

So, if my critics want to know why I’m skeptical of New York Times articles critical of the Bush Administration (based on leaks), it’s because its reporters don’t seem to realize that the leakers may also have an axe to grind. Until the paper starts to show the same skepticism of anti-Bush leakers as it has shown to those critical of the Clinton Administration, I will remain skeptical of the Gray Lady’s evenhandedness. And less likely to trust its reporting of the Bush Administration — and the conservative movement.

-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com

Fellow Pajamas Media blogger Dr. Rusty Shackleford of the Jawa Report celebrates his second blogiversary today with a post detailing how he helped nab a would-be terrorist. One of his past posts about a man’s quest for information on nuclear bombs and chemical weapons drew federal investigators attention to a Jordanian who had “fraudently immigrated” to the U.S. and was using a computer at a public library in Ohio to “seek out fellow jihadis.” Help celebrate Jawa’s blogiversary by reading his post and congratulating him for a job well done. And to marvel at what the blogosphere can accomplish.

It was 25 years ago today that the history of the United States and the world changed forever. It would have been remembered as an historic day even without the swearing in of the 40th President of the United States. The American Hostages were being released after 444 days of captivity in Iran. Of course no one would realize, or appreciate at the time, that the Iran hostage crisis was just the beginning of the world wide war against America by Islamofascists.

But the long-term impact of Ronald Reagan’s inauguration that day has been felt by millions around the world who were freed from Communist oppression because of his commitment and vision. Here in the United States, Reagan brought the country back from the days of Carter’s malaise to a new level of economic productivity and patriotism. As I told an ABC Radio reporter while I stood in line at the Capitol to pay my respects upon his passing in June 2004, as long as I live Ronald Reagan will be the person I will consider as “my President.”

I found this decent column in the LA Times marking the 25th Anniversary of Reagan’s inauguration.

What Reagan Knew – Richard Reeves, LATimes.com

TWENTY-FIVE YEARS ago today, on Jan. 20, 1981, Ronald Reagan was sworn in as the 40th president of the United States. The former governor of California faced west, away from the front of the Capitol, and gave a most extraordinary inaugural address.

He touched on four simple themes, the ones he had been repeating for years, first as spokesman for the General Electric Co., then as governor of California and as the post-Goldwater icon of the conservative wing of the Republican Party: reducing taxes and budget deficits and thus reducing the power and size of the government; rebuilding the American military; confronting communism around the world; and renewing American pride and patriotism.

Reagan, a stubborn and determined old man not greatly interested in learning anything new, instinctively understood the presidency in important ways that were derided and mocked by many of his contemporaries. He knew the job was not managing the government, it was leading the nation. He knew words could be more important than deeds — and he was not ashamed of that. He knew the presidency was about trust and judgment, the way the man at the top handled the two or three big ones that came his way, usually unexpectedly. No one remembers Abraham Lincoln’s agricultural policy.

He was politically alone those last two years. Congress and the press treated him as a fool or a crook. Conservatives abandoned him, consigning him to Lenin’s category of “useful idiots.” But he knew one big thing, and always had: Communism would fall of its own weight and contradictions. And he had found the key to victory in the Cold War: a Soviet leader who also understood that old-fashioned communism was collapsing.

The official notes of the Reagan/Mikhail S. Gorbachev meetings, finally released in this century, show convincingly that Reagan, trying to save his ideology and his presidency, prevailed over Gorbachev, the Russian trying to save his ideology and his country.

There was no one at his inauguration in January 1981 who would have predicted that within 10 years the Soviet Union would be dissolved and Russia would begin applying for membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

Well, maybe Ronald Reagan did. But no one took him seriously — then.

As a foot soldier of the Reagan Revolution, I salute my Commander-In-Chief on this day. God Bless Ronald Reagan.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)