>Most unsettling of all is this comment from across the Atlantic:
>Noting that RR and Bush have both similarities and differences, the
>Economist states that "it is worth remembering that in the 1980s
>many liberals thought that Mr Reagan was a weird aberration—a long
>national daydream, to quote the title of a book from the period.
>Today many liberals think the same about Mr Bush, hoping he will be
>humiliated in November's election. But whatever happens at that
>election, these liberals are wrong about the longer-term drift of
>American politics. Mr Reagan's presidency signalled a profound shift
>in American life. His revolution realigned domestic politics, and
>laid the basis of a challenging relationship between America and the
>rest of the world."
><http://economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2747437>
>
>In short, Ron the man may be gone, but his revolution shall endure
>-- a boot stamping on a human face forever, so to speak.
This is the Economist, fer chrissakes. What do you expect? And as a footnote to the story discloses:
>The rise of the conservative movement is the subject of a new book
>by two of our writers, John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge: "The
>Right Nation: Conservative Power in America" (Penguin Press).
The piece was probably written by them or their publicist.
Doug