Reagan would NEVER have won the piece prize because he is a conservative. The voters of this prize are mostly WAY left liberals. So even Clinton will not qualify because he was to much of a centrist. Bush was a spend a holic so he should have made the left happy. Bush had very little to do with the mess we are in, greed of the entirety of the US market place did and the fact that people that did not have jobs went out and got things like houses.
One of the biggest problems we have in the Republican party is accountability.
Obama is there for a variety of reasons. But the biggest single reason is Bush was chosen. Bush was given a second term because his competition sucked, and many wanted him to return and wade in the knee-deep crap pile he left.
Being apologetic does nothing to help the party, it makes us all look pretty stupid. At this point, many R's are just chanting rehashed dog chit like the Dems are.
We had choices. A fairly liberal spender that the Religious zealots loved. A mormon they hated, but one that left behind a helth care plan as Governor that was very similar in content and term to what was just presented. He called himself a Republican, so many of Us (I mean you), said he was good.
Then came John and Sarah. Most business leaders and even conservatives know full well the black skies that that combo would have left. Sarah, posing as an energy expert, had ideas that would have sunk every oil company and refinery in the nation. Thank god they knew she was a hack with no real power. What those two didn't know about economics and business was staggering, simply staggering.
So what's left? Most are worried sick that Obama will do something good that works. Why don't we, as self-professed Republicans, actually propose better ideas, and better candidates? It's just not enough to blast the other side, although fun at times, it's not leadership.
Just ask yourself this. Name the top ten Republican ideas or proposals since Obama got elected. Maybe you'll see the problem then.
