Why was former president Reagan so popular?

Joined
Dec 13, 2002
Messages
720
Location
Québec, French North America
As I said in the 'did you have a good day' thread, today I wrote a part of an essay for school. The subject is why was president Reagan so popular. Unfortunately, I'm not finished yet and I need ideas. I've already developed the part about hastening an end to the Cold War, so I'd like to hear your opinion, besides 'ending' the Cold War, what has he done to be so popular? In 1984, when he got 49 States out of 50, he had not ended the Cold War yet. So, how come? His charisma alone got him that huge majority? I'd be extremly grateful if you shared your thoughts on that matter. Thanks in advance!
(So, welcome, conservative posters ;) )
 
You already nailed it. It was his presonal magnetism.

Don't kid yourself, Clinton didn't get elected because of any particular planks in his platform. He got elected because he did a jam session on the saxophone with Arsenio Hall on national television. :)

The Governator is having the same kind of luck right now. He bills himself as a fiscal conservative and social liberal, but actually, his policies in California are kind of hackneyed. And yet nobody is complaining.

It's all about the image.
 
people everywhere are dumbasses

simple as that, its not the guy with the best ideas they want, its the dude with the best hair, usually
 
R.R. won because he came at a time when the u.s.a.'s pride and self esteem was very low. he was a flag waver--" the u.s. is back, we're # 1 again, were not taking sh*t from anyone,ect..."
 
He's popular not because he ended the cold war, but HOW he did it. He out spent them, he put billions of dollars into the american economy. He gave people jobs and a salary, something many presidents failed to do.

Also, many people "honor" Clinton for his terms. What most people don't understand is that it takes years AFTER they are out of office for there economic policy to take effect. So, that great economy we saw in Clintons term, you can thank Reagan/Bush Sr. for.

Also, yes... I do blame our current economic conditition on clinton.
 
After the shameful Carter years, he gave the nation pride and purpose again, something it badly needed.

That and he took no crap from anyone, and while under him neither did we. If you notice the Iranians were real quick to give back the hostages, on the day he came into office. Rumor has it he made it clear to the Iranians he would pick a few of there cities on the map and let them play catch with nukes if the situation continued. :)
 
Jawz II said:
people everywhere are dumbasses

simple as that, its not the guy with the best ideas they want, its the dude with the best hair, usually

Case in point........


Reagan was a charismatic and gifted speaker. He articulated an agenda based on a set of deeply held principles and he pursued it without wavering. No opinion polls, no flip-flopping everytime the going got tough.

Character is destiny...........and Reagan had lots of character.
 
Bronx Warlord said:
Rumor has it he made it clear to the Iranians he would pick a few of there cities on the map and let them play catch with nukes if the situation continued. :)

Right on, Reagan, that's the way to handle foriegn affairs!
/sarcasm
 
Got the hostages back did it not? I seam to remember Carter grovleing like some beaten stepchild and getting nothing but laughed at... I'd rather have been freed than not, so I can say it was a smart move on Reagans part. I'm sure you would feel the same if you had spent a few years as a hostage as well.
 
Three words: Special forces rescue.
I don't like Carter, either. I wasn't flaming you, if that's what you thought.
 
pawpaw said:
three words: tried rescue,failed

Sorry, my history is foggy.

The thing is, I think threatening with nukes is going a bit overboard. We shouldn't have to threaten with nukes for any reason. What if they still didn't turn over the hostages?
 
WarlordMatt said:
Sorry, my history is foggy.

The thing is, I think threatening with nukes is going a bit overboard. We shouldn't have to threaten with nukes for any reason. What if they still didn't turn over the hostages?

Then we wouldn't have to worry much more about Iran, would we?
 
Strider said:
Then we wouldn't have to worry much more about Iran, would we?

And we wouldn't have to worry much about the rest of the Muslim world liking us either. It would just give Osama another excuse to use nuclear weapons on us.
 
WarlordMatt said:
Sorry, my history is foggy.

The thing is, I think threatening with nukes is going a bit overboard. We shouldn't have to threaten with nukes for any reason. What if they still didn't turn over the hostages?

I had the impression that Reagan promise to unfrozen freezed Iranian's assets in America to get the hostage free.
 
pawpaw said:
three words: tried rescue,failed

Bright day
AFAIK because you had no special forces ready for action, the helicopters ran out of fuel before they got to Iran.

Actually I read an (very articulated and signed) essay on internet on how he was one of worst presidents of USA.
 
Top Bottom