But, the economic bad times he presided over were a) a carryover from the Nixon years' Arab oil crisis. Carter simply had no idea how to fix that, and b) it hit everyone.

Under Reagan, the vast majority of people were losing even before the 87 crash, and that crash barely affected the rich, while the rest of us had to wait till Clinton to even get back to even.

As for Greenspan- competent, but hardly Right Wing- he was the Ultimate Keynsian, and proof that Reagan's idea of gov't was bankrupt.

You should look up what the misery index was back in 1980. Carter was an economic disaster but I guess Shaun could claim that Carter was unlucky when he appointed incompetents to the Federal Reserve.

Reagan at least had enough since to appoint competent people to run the Fed. And you may remember that Clinton kept the Republican appointees running the fed.

Come to think of it, Thompson is a lot like him! And further proof that even that shining city on the hill has its share of dim bulbs.

I doubt the GOP is through, though they will almost certainly lose the next election big, as they so richly deserve. If they can return to their roots, they will be back and will deserve to be.

Image what the coming one party state is going to be like where blacks, Hispanics, suburban whites, and urban elites are ripping each other apart to get the most government benefits? Beating up on a dead president is not going to solve the problems that face the U.S. But of course, while Democrats talk about Reagan, the schools get worse, the border remains open, and the middle class feels like they are being screwed.

Does anyone really believe that the Republicans are ever going to win a presidential election again? Or will the U.S. become much like the municipal elections in places like Philadelphia where the Democratic primary is the real election?

Here is a good reason why America is off track. Pete has no real reason for his beliefs save he felt good. In other posts, Michael Stickings is literally begging for the two party stsus quo to remain, as if that's a good thing: http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/third-part…, and in yet another post http://themoderatevoice.com/at-tmv/17247/obama-… Jill MZ says she trusted Al Gore- the ecologist who was VP under a Prez w a worse ecological record than Reagan, and does not feel good about Edwards- the most substantive and passionate candidate for Prez.
Herein a microcosm of what is absolutely wrong with the electorate today. One person who is blissfully apathetic, another who wallows in the muck of today and refuses change, and a third with no clue as to why she feels a thing.
It ain't the pols, folk, it's you!'

I realize that humans are selfish, but I'm hardly a bleeding heart, yet when I see others suffer needlessly- millions under Reagan in the 80s, when I see folk like Stickings begging to keep the status quo, or Jill, like Pete, just floating by w/o any real thought for consequences, it is dumbfounding.

Any good feelings or bad feelings I had or have have little to do w W now, not his predecessors, but one can look at events- such as Gitmo and blame Bush w/o being partisan, one can call Clinton a do nothing for 8 years, w/o being partisan.

But, Michael's is the worst rationale of all, and everything that's wrong w the Am electorate. Apathy, ala Pete & Jill, is one thing, but determined stolidity and cowardice, that's a disgrace.

Shaun — you are a gentleman, as always.

Thank you for the kind words, but I wouldn't discount the feel-good aspect of any politician. That's important. I myself felt good in the 90s until the tech bubble burst and with it my stock portfolio.

That has to be the silliest reason yet I've ever seen for a pro-con view of a Prez.