Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Ronald Reagan at 100
America's Debate > Everything Else > History Debate
Pages: 1, 2
Google
nighttimer
Ronald Reagan would have turned 100 on February 6th and his presidency and legacy is being remembered and celebrated this week.
QUOTE
Had he lived just a few years longer, Ronald Reagan would have turned 100 this Sunday. In his memory, the nation will honor his mark on history - and debate his legacy.

His widow, Nancy Reagan, will lay a wreath at the Reagan library in California, where the 40th president was buried when he died in 2004 at the age of 93. A group of F-18s from the USS Ronald Reagan will salute him from the air.

In Washington, the city where he made his greatest impact, politicians will salute his tenure. One of them is President Barack Obama, who, though a liberal who yearns to undo much of Reagan's domestic record, admires the way Reagan changed the course of history.

"No matter what political disagreements you may have had with President Reagan, and I certainly had my share, there is no denying his leadership in the world, or his gift for communicating his vision for America," Obama said in a recent essay for USA Today.

Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/2011/02/03/26295...l#ixzz1Cv2Afzuh


Few presidents in recent memory provoke such a vast array of expressions praising him as a visionary leader or damning him as a total dullard.

Such is the hold of Ronald Reagan on the Republican Party that it is simply impossible to imagine a candidate not reaching for the Reagan mantle. And such is the hold of Reagan on our politics as a whole that, on the eve of the State of the Union, President Obama felt compelled to praise Reagan's leadership and "unique ability to inspire others to greatness."

Just 15 years ago, Obama condemned what he called the "dirty deeds" of "Reagan and his minions" -- not an unusual opinion among Democrats. Now, the political world as a whole is coming to recognize, at least a bit, the greatness in Reagan that Republicans have admired for more than a generation.


Byron York

Scandals galore marked the Reagan years. The 1980s savings and loan scandal -- partly caused by the administration's aversion to even minimal regulation -- resulted in a bailout that transferred hundreds of billions of dollars from taxpayers to S&L scammers. Top Reagan aide Michael Deaver was convicted of perjury related to influence-peddling. At the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Republican-wired consultants pocketed millions for rigging contracts.

The Reagan years were a time of fierce and divisive controversies, over policy and politics. Ronald Reagan's administration more than once resorted to skulduggery to get its way. Overseas, it sided with brutes. At home, it gave tax credits to private schools that segregated. The depiction of Reagan as one of the nation's most glorious leaders is but a conservative cartoon. His legacy is far more complicated -- and blemished. Next week will be an appropriate time to remember that. But I'll bet Sarah Palin doesn't get around to mentioning any of this.


David Corn

Obviously there's a world of difference between how York and Corn view the Reagan Years. But what about you? How do you view the Great Communicator?

Questions for debate:

1. Was Ronald Reagan among America's greatest Presidents or was he much less than that?

2. What was it about Reagan that made him a success or failure?

3. Does America need another Chief Executive in the mode of Reagan or was he simply the man for that particular moment?
Google
lederuvdapac
1. Was Ronald Reagan among America's greatest Presidents or was he much less than that?

Much less, but better than many. He talked the talk but he couldn't walk the walk. I do think he was sincere in his beliefs, but it is questionable whether he betrayed those beliefs or whether he just wasn't able to see them through due to the system we have in place. I don't know which scenario is worse.

2. What was it about Reagan that made him a success or failure?

Good rhetoric. He followed Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford who were about as exciting as paint drying. Reagan used nationalist rhetoric to make Americans feel good about being Americans again after the debacles in Vietnam, Watergate, and the stagflation.

His biggest failure was that he exploited the biggest flaw in our economic system - the monetization of debt and deficit spending. We ended our currency's ties to the gold standard in 1971, and by the end of the decade we were faced with massive inflation. Reagan and Volcker came in and saved the currency. They then worked in tandem to monetize government deficits. Reagan cut tax rates, continued to spend money and provide a blueprint for Presidents to follow. What proceeded was a massive increase in the CPI, the troubling trend of increased household debt and decreased household savings, and a massive redistribution of wealth via purchasing power to elites.

3. Does America need another Chief Executive in the mode of Reagan or was he simply the man for that particular moment?

No. America needs what always needs, an adherent to the oath to uphold the Constitution.

As a bonus, I consider the 5 most overrated presidents in history to be:

5) Woodrow Wilson
4) FDR
3) Ronald Reagan
2) Abraham Lincoln
1) JFK

Not meaning the worst, just most overrated.
Ted
1. Was Ronald Reagan among America's greatest Presidents or was he much less than that?

Little doubt there and polls confirm it..

PRINCETON, NJ -- Less than a month into Barack Obama's presidency, Obama's desire to emulate Abraham Lincoln can be found in his speeches, his bipartisan gestures, and his "team of rivals" approach to picking a cabinet. But Lincoln is not matchless as Americans' pick for the nation's greatest president. Given a list of five presidents to choose from, Americans are as likely to name John Kennedy as Lincoln (22% each), while 24% choose Ronald Reagan.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/114292/best-pre...an-kennedy.aspx
QUOTE
2. What was it about Reagan that made him a success or failure?


He stuck with his philosophy and defended well his positions.
Raptavio

1. Was Ronald Reagan among America's greatest Presidents or was he much less than that?


He could not help be much less than what those who claim his mantle want him to be. And that's not to say Reagan was a failure; it's just that he has been canonized, if not deified, by much of the modern Republican Party.

2. What was it about Reagan that made him a success or failure?

He went far to help restore confidence and faith in our country at a time when it was at a very low point. That was very successful. And it very much made him the right man for that moment.
He negotiated arms reduction treaties with the Soviet Union that helped close the Cold War. Also awesome.
"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" was a pivotal, seminal moment, and was probably one of the top ten speeches of American history.
There are some other things, but they don't come to mind right now.

On the other hand..
He exploded the debt.

He traded arms with both Iran and Iraq.
He actively supported and funded the terrorist Contras in Nicaragua, in violation of law.
He abandoned the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan as soon as they kicked the Soviets out.
He fled Lebanon.
These four things and other foreign policy moves/blunders created problems that stay with us to this day -- including the problem we call al Qaeda. Including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and including the brinksmanship games being played with Iran that could still erupt into another war.

He ignored the burgeoning AIDS crisis and the government didn't take action as a consequence until far later than it should have, costing who knows how many lives.

While a skepticism and a 'trust but verify' (© Reagan) attitude about government is a smart thing, Reagan promoted a fundamental mistrust and hatred of government -- he promoted the idea that government cannot fix any problem and is the problem. This weakened our unity as a nation in ways that are obvious and ways that are subtle.

All in all, he's a very middle of the pack President, lionized because, like Obama, he was an amazing orator, a quick wit, and was very, very inspirational. He has lasting popularity not because of what he did but because of who he was. But only to the simpleton does popularity equal success. Success is measured by what his legacy is, and how what he did as President affected this country for good or for ill. I think that in another 30 or so years, history will be far less kind to him than it is now.

3. Does America need another Chief Executive in the mode of Reagan or was he simply the man for that particular moment?

Another Chief Executive like Reagan would have turned this recession into a depression. Instead of a slowly reducing unemployment rate we'd have watched it climb to levels unseen since before WWII. His foreign policy would have taken an already bad international situation and made it far worse. No, he's the wrong man for the moment.

However, it's moot. A new Reagan would never get through the Republican primaries, and certainly wouldn't be a contender in the Democratic primaries. Reagan was too far to the left to be a top-tier Republican contender in the modern era, and too far to the right to be anything approaching a Democrat.
Ted
QUOTE
Rap
On the other hand..
He exploded the debt.


I agree with much of what you said here except:

He exploded the debt? What you mean id he beefed up defense and the Congress blew the budget out the window..
QUOTE
These four things and other foreign policy moves/blunders created problems that stay with us to this day -- including the problem we call al Qaeda.


Huh? No evidence for and much evidence against this idea. Bin Laden was influenced by men going back to 1948. The idea that he abandoned the Mujahedeen and this had anything to do with the formation of al Qaeda is utterly ridiculous
akaCG
QUOTE(Raptavio @ Feb 4 2011, 11:42 AM) *
...
He abandoned the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan as soon as they kicked the Soviets out.
...

That would have been quite a feat, given that "[t]he final [Soviet] troop withdrawal [out of Afghanistan] ... ended on February 15, 1989.", about one month AFTER Reagan left the White House.

Dontreadonme
QUOTE(Ted @ Feb 4 2011, 11:55 AM) *
Huh? No evidence for and much evidence against this idea.


And yet ironically, you bring none of this vast trove of evidence to the table in conjunction with your accusation. The genesis of Al Qaeda corresponded to the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, and consisted of the very same people who were directly aided by Reagan's NDD 166 - US Policy, Programs, and Strategy in Afghanistan, 27 Mar 85.

As much as US history attempts to whitewash our past alliances with tyrants, dictators and terrorists, the law of unintended consequences and the paradigm of blowback are part and parcel of that history.

No amount of slavish adulation and idolatry of the GOP's chosen saint can change facts.

1. Was Ronald Reagan among America's greatest Presidents or was he much less than that?

He was a fair President. What seems to matter more than his actions and policies is the cult of personality. The Regan Administration is far more often depicted not by those standard metrics, but by his 'attitude and persona'......vague qualities that are fit for judging a man's character, but not his record.
Raptavio
QUOTE(akaCG @ Feb 4 2011, 11:48 AM) *
QUOTE(Raptavio @ Feb 4 2011, 11:42 AM) *
...
He abandoned the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan as soon as they kicked the Soviets out.
...

That would have been quite a feat, given that "[t]he final [Soviet] troop withdrawal [out of Afghanistan] ... ended on February 15, 1989.", about one month AFTER Reagan left the White House.


True. But the Soviet withdrawal began in May 1988 and as soon as it did, CIA funding of Hezb-i-Islami was cut off immediately. But you are right in that the last of the funding for Afghanistan was not cut off until 1992 -- so both Reagan and HW Bush get to share the "credit" for that. And part of it was due to the 1990 incident were HW Bush wouldn't pretend Pakistan didn't have nukes and sanctions were automatically placed upon Pakistan, disrupting what funding remained. It's all very complicated.

Of course all this is hard to know with precision due to the nature of CIA funding and the fact that it flowed through Pakistan.

Regardless... Reagan's successes were many, and so were his failures.

Ted
QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Feb 4 2011, 01:29 PM) *
QUOTE(Ted @ Feb 4 2011, 11:55 AM) *
Huh? No evidence for and much evidence against this idea.


And yet ironically, you bring none of this vast trove of evidence to the table in conjunction with your accusation. The genesis of Al Qaeda corresponded to the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, and consisted of the very same people who were directly aided by Reagan's NDD 166 - US Policy, Programs, and Strategy in Afghanistan, 27 Mar 85.

As much as US history attempts to whitewash our past alliances with tyrants, dictators and terrorists, the law of unintended consequences and the paradigm of blowback are part and parcel of that history.

No amount of slavish adulation and idolatry of the GOP's chosen saint can change facts.

1. Was Ronald Reagan among America's greatest Presidents or was he much less than that?

He was a fair President. What seems to matter more than his actions and policies is the cult of personality. The Regan Administration is far more often depicted not by those standard metrics, but by his 'attitude and persona'......vague qualities that are fit for judging a man's character, but not his record.

Try the Looming Tower book to get the real story. Its all there from day one

QUOTE
Who knew, for instance, that bin Laden, far from being a warrior-stoic fighting against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, was actually a pathetic stick-in-the-mud who would fall ill before battle? That the combat-hardened Afghans, so tired of bin Ladens behavior, declared him and his Arab associates useless? Or that he was a permissive father and indulgent husband? Or that he is only six feet tall?
More important, who knew I sure didnt that bin Laden had left behind such a long trail of words? Wright has found them in books, on film, in audio recordings, in peoples notebooks and memories. This has allowed him to draw an in-depth portrait of bin Laden, and to chart his evolution from a self-conscious step-child growing up in Jidda, Saudi Arabia, to the visionary cave-dwelling madman who mimics the Holy Prophet in his most humdrum daily habits.
Just as dramatic as the portraits of bin Laden and Zawahiri is Wrights account of the roots of Islamic militancy the intellectual, spiritual and material world from which the plotters came. Wright draws a fascinating picture of Sayyid Qutb, the font of modern Islamic fundamentalism, a frail, middle-aged writer

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/06/books/re.../06filkins.html

QUOTE
Wright dispels a number of myths. The relatively tiny number of Arab fighters in Afghanistan during the war against the Soviet Union received no aid from the US. Thus, Osama bin Laden is not the creation of the CIA.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2006/sep/1...pping.politics1
Paladin Elspeth
Here's a bar graph originally aired on The Rachel Maddow Show about how much deficit spending was attributed to the most recent presidencies. Some of you might be surprised just how much Ronald Reagan's presidency produced by way of deficit spending, all the while RR dissing the Democrats about "tax and spend." Remember George H. W. Bush while campaigning referring to RR's plans as "voodoo economics"? Of course he shut up after he became Ronnie's running mate.

Here's the video link:
http://www.examiner.com/liberal-in-portlan...are-republicans
Google
Raptavio
QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Feb 4 2011, 08:57 PM) *
Here's a bar graph originally aired on The Rachel Maddow Show about how much deficit spending was attributed to the most recent presidencies. Some of you might be surprised just how much Ronald Reagan's presidency produced by way of deficit spending, all the while RR dissing the Democrats about "tax and spend." Remember George H. W. Bush while campaigning referring to RR's plans as "voodoo economics"? Of course he shut up after he became Ronnie's running mate.

Here's the video link:
http://www.examiner.com/liberal-in-portlan...are-republicans


It should also be noted that, while budgets all originate in the House, which was Democratically controlled all eight years, that seven of those eight years the budget Reagan submitted to Congress was higher than the one he actually passed.
Ted
QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Feb 4 2011, 09:57 PM) *
Here's a bar graph originally aired on The Rachel Maddow Show about how much deficit spending was attributed to the most recent presidencies. Some of you might be surprised just how much Ronald Reagan's presidency produced by way of deficit spending, all the while RR dissing the Democrats about "tax and spend." Remember George H. W. Bush while campaigning referring to RR's plans as "voodoo economics"? Of course he shut up after he became Ronnie's running mate.

Here's the video link:
http://www.examiner.com/liberal-in-portlan...are-republicans

The Congress spends the money. Reagan was committed to increasing defense spending and did so (and ended the cold). Democrats in Congress got their pork in and the total equaled deficits.
QUOTE
While liberals love to point to these deficits as definitive proof of the economic shortcomings of the Reagan administration, their memories seem to lapse in recalling the role of the House of Representatives (controlled by the liberal Democrats.)

Sources:
Budget Message of the President, FY's 81 to 89
Budget of the United States, FY 1993, Part 5, Table 1.3, page 5-18.
Proposed outlays for 1981 from 1981 FY 1982 Budget Revisions
Fiscal Year Proposed Actual % Difference
1982 695.3 745.8 7.3
1983 773.3 808.4 4.5
1984 862.5 851.8 -1.2
1985 940.3 946.4 0.7
1986 973.7 990.3 1.7
1987 994.0 1003.9 1.0
1988 1024.3 1064.1 3.9
1989 1094.2 1144.2 4.6
Totals 7,357.6 7,554.9 Avg 2.8
As one can see from the chart, Reagan's budget (proposed) was substantially less than Congress' (actual) every year, save 1984. Even with Reagan's massive defense buildup, the liberals were still able to outspend him!
http://www.word-gems.com/deception.politic...an.deficit.html



http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-d...it-in-pictures/
Paladin Elspeth
QUOTE(Ted @ Feb 4 2011, 10:11 PM) *
QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Feb 4 2011, 09:57 PM) *
Here's a bar graph originally aired on The Rachel Maddow Show about how much deficit spending was attributed to the most recent presidencies. Some of you might be surprised just how much Ronald Reagan's presidency produced by way of deficit spending, all the while RR dissing the Democrats about "tax and spend." Remember George H. W. Bush while campaigning referring to RR's plans as "voodoo economics"? Of course he shut up after he became Ronnie's running mate.

Here's the video link:
http://www.examiner.com/liberal-in-portlan...are-republicans

The Congress spends the money. Reagan was committed to increasing defense spending and did so (and ended the cold). Democrats in Congress got their pork in and the total equaled deficits.
QUOTE
While liberals love to point to these deficits as definitive proof of the economic shortcomings of the Reagan administration, their memories seem to lapse in recalling the role of the House of Representatives (controlled by the liberal Democrats.)

Sources:
Budget Message of the President, FY's 81 to 89
Budget of the United States, FY 1993, Part 5, Table 1.3, page 5-18.
Proposed outlays for 1981 from 1981 FY 1982 Budget Revisions
Fiscal Year Proposed Actual % Difference
1982 695.3 745.8 7.3
1983 773.3 808.4 4.5
1984 862.5 851.8 -1.2
1985 940.3 946.4 0.7
1986 973.7 990.3 1.7
1987 994.0 1003.9 1.0
1988 1024.3 1064.1 3.9
1989 1094.2 1144.2 4.6
Totals 7,357.6 7,554.9 Avg 2.8
As one can see from the chart, Reagan's budget (proposed) was substantially less than Congress' (actual) every year, save 1984. Even with Reagan's massive defense buildup, the liberals were still able to outspend him!
http://www.word-gems.com/deception.politic...an.deficit.html



http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-d...it-in-pictures/


Still--for all his rhetoric--why did Ronald Reagan's administration nearly TRIPLE the National Debt? Blaming it on the Democrats sounds like a really implausible excuse. He could have used his veto pen, don't ya think? Or is it still

"The Democrats! The Democrats!"

Look at the other Republican presidencies. They had the highest debt of the last five Presidents, including Clinton's, who had the least. The diatribe is ringing hollow, Ted...
Ted
QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Feb 4 2011, 10:16 PM) *
QUOTE(Ted @ Feb 4 2011, 10:11 PM) *
QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Feb 4 2011, 09:57 PM) *
Here's a bar graph originally aired on The Rachel Maddow Show about how much deficit spending was attributed to the most recent presidencies. Some of you might be surprised just how much Ronald Reagan's presidency produced by way of deficit spending, all the while RR dissing the Democrats about "tax and spend." Remember George H. W. Bush while campaigning referring to RR's plans as "voodoo economics"? Of course he shut up after he became Ronnie's running mate.

Here's the video link:
http://www.examiner.com/liberal-in-portlan...are-republicans

The Congress spends the money. Reagan was committed to increasing defense spending and did so (and ended the cold). Democrats in Congress got their pork in and the total equaled deficits.
QUOTE
While liberals love to point to these deficits as definitive proof of the economic shortcomings of the Reagan administration, their memories seem to lapse in recalling the role of the House of Representatives (controlled by the liberal Democrats.)

Sources:
Budget Message of the President, FY's 81 to 89
Budget of the United States, FY 1993, Part 5, Table 1.3, page 5-18.
Proposed outlays for 1981 from 1981 FY 1982 Budget Revisions
Fiscal Year Proposed Actual % Difference
1982 695.3 745.8 7.3
1983 773.3 808.4 4.5
1984 862.5 851.8 -1.2
1985 940.3 946.4 0.7
1986 973.7 990.3 1.7
1987 994.0 1003.9 1.0
1988 1024.3 1064.1 3.9
1989 1094.2 1144.2 4.6
Totals 7,357.6 7,554.9 Avg 2.8
As one can see from the chart, Reagan's budget (proposed) was substantially less than Congress' (actual) every year, save 1984. Even with Reagan's massive defense buildup, the liberals were still able to outspend him!
http://www.word-gems.com/deception.politic...an.deficit.html



http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-d...it-in-pictures/


Still--for all his rhetoric--why did Ronald Reagan's administration nearly TRIPLE the National Debt? Blaming it on the Democrats sounds like a really implausible excuse. He could have used his veto pen, don't ya think? Or is it still

"The Democrats! The Democrats!"

Look at the other Republican presidencies. They had the highest debt of the last five Presidents, including Clinton's, who had the least. The diatribe is ringing hollow, Ted...

You cant veto the spending if you want to get the increased defense spending passed can you PE.

Politics is all about compromise. Regan got what he wanted and he cut taxes and ended a bad recession. Dems got their spending as well.

As now bigger deficits are not all bad if people are out of work are they?

Paladin Elspeth
QUOTE(Ted)
Politics is all about compromise. Regan got what he wanted and he cut taxes and ended a bad recession. Dems got their spending as well.

REAGAN ended the recession? laugh.gif

Try again...
Ted
QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Feb 4 2011, 10:27 PM) *
QUOTE(Ted)
Politics is all about compromise. Regan got what he wanted and he cut taxes and ended a bad recession. Dems got their spending as well.

REAGAN ended the recession? laugh.gif

Try again...

Well lets not revise history too much PE whistling.gif
QUOTE
Recession began in December 2007, lasted 18 months, and ended in June 2009. The last recession that lasted this long began in July 1981, lasted 16 months, and ended in November 1982.
No two recessions are the same. And no two recoveries are going to be exactly the same either especially when the presidents that preside over them have diametrically opposed philosophies about what government can or should do. But as Ronald Reagan once said: Shouldnt we expect government to read the score to us once in a while?

As the chart to the right shows, the stark reality is that the economic recovery under President Barack Obama has been much weaker than the recovery under President Ronald Reagan. At this stage of the Reagan recovery, unemployment had fallen more than three full points, from 10.8% to 7.7%. By contrast, under the Obama recovery unemployment has actually risen almost a half a percent from 9.4% to 9.8%.
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/12/08/reagan...-in-pictures-2/

akaCG
QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Feb 4 2011, 10:27 PM) *
QUOTE(Ted)
Politics is all about compromise. Regan got what he wanted and he cut taxes and ended a bad recession. Dems got their spending as well.

REAGAN ended the recession? laugh.gif

Try again...

Methinks it's you who needs to "try again".

According to the way the NBER calculates such things, the recession that started in July 1981 ended in November 1982.

Who was President at that time, pray tell?

Or did you mean that Presidents neither start nor end recessions?

Paladin Elspeth
QUOTE(akaCG @ Feb 4 2011, 10:41 PM) *
QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Feb 4 2011, 10:27 PM) *
QUOTE(Ted)
Politics is all about compromise. Regan got what he wanted and he cut taxes and ended a bad recession. Dems got their spending as well.

REAGAN ended the recession? laugh.gif

Try again...

Methinks it's you who needs to "try again".

According to the way the NBER calculates such things, the recession that started in July 1981 ended in November 1982.

Who was President at that time, pray tell?

Or did you mean that Presidents neither start nor end recessions?


I will address my remarks to Ted.

My bad. It was Bill Clinton who ended THE DEFICIT from the Reagan administration, not the recession of the Reagan administration.

The federal budget was balanced during the Clinton administration.

Reagan certainly did not end the deficit. While his tax cuts were credited for ending the recession, they don't seem to be doing much these days, nor did they do much during George W. Bush's administration.

Reagan was a man of great charisma, but his administration wasn't that great.

And then there was George W. Bush, who merely left out the little matters of the war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq to make his numbers look better. And they were STILL worse than Clinton's.

Check the bar graph I linked to.
Ted
QUOTE
PE
The federal budget was balanced during the Clinton administration.

And do you remember who made that happen in the Congress

Yes thats right it was Republicans .Remember "contract with America". whistling.gif
http://sirknob.wordpress.com/2010/02/04/ov...budget-surplus/

QUOTE
Reagan certainly did not end the deficit. While his tax cuts were credited for ending the recession, they don't seem to be doing much these days, nor did they do much during George W. Bush's administration.


Obama could have lowers taxes as Reagan did but chose instead to just do the usual Democrat pork spending how has they worked out? cry.gif

Now he is changing course - finally
Paladin Elspeth
QUOTE(Ted @ Feb 4 2011, 11:29 PM) *
QUOTE
PE
The federal budget was balanced during the Clinton administration.

And do you remember who made that happen in the Congress

Yes thats right it was Republicans .Remember "contract with America". whistling.gif
http://sirknob.wordpress.com/2010/02/04/ov...budget-surplus/

QUOTE
Reagan certainly did not end the deficit. While his tax cuts were credited for ending the recession, they don't seem to be doing much these days, nor did they do much during George W. Bush's administration.


Obama could have lowers taxes as Reagan did but chose instead to just do the usual Democrat pork spending how has they worked out? cry.gif

Now he is changing course - finally


Well, the auto industry survived, for one. Also, he helped all those banks out, and they did their greedy little thing seeing to themselves and not helping the American people. Not all pigs at the trough are Democrats after all.

And while you would love to credit Newt Gingrich and his cronies, remember that Clinton also raised taxes, that it wasn't tax cuts that got the country out of the hole that time.

The tax cuts to those making $250K or more are irresponsible, but Republicans have never met a tax cut they didn't like, so they are up to their snouts in hog waller with that--Good for you, Mr. President! But like George W. Bush, he signed the bill for that to be temporary. Is it that these Presidents don't want to make the tax cuts for the rich permanent? I wonder why--perhaps something about huge, tax-free American money held in banks in the Cayman Islands?

Yup, the more President Obama walks and quacks like a Republican, the more they like him. Whoda thunkit?

Now let's see how that 9% unemployment goes now that the wealthiest citizens of our country are wealthier still while the blue collar workers continue to get screwed by the outsourcing...yeah, he's changing course all right... mellow.gif

But as far as Ronald Reagan goes, I liked him much better on Death Valley Days sitting astride that horse and pushing 20 Mule Team Borax. He was a good if not a great actor.
Dontreadonme
QUOTE(Ted @ Feb 4 2011, 09:46 PM) *
Try the Looming Tower book to get the real story. Its all there from day one


I've suggested to you previously, the folly of relying on one source for what you believe to be the 'real story'. Especially when that source merely tells you what you wish to hear.

Conduct a bit of independent research on bin Laden and the Maktab al-Khidimat...and where they and Operation Cyclone received their funding. This was initiated under Carter, but Reagan continued where he left off.
nighttimer
QUOTE(Ted @ Feb 4 2011, 11:29 PM) *
Obama could have lowers taxes as Reagan did but chose instead to just do the usual Democrat pork spending how has they worked out? cry.gif

Now he is changing course - finally


Nice try Ted, but Obama is trying to restore a bit of adult supervision and fiscal sanity after Bush Jr. blew a truck-sized hole in the budget surplus Clinton left him, started two wars that he kept the cost of off the books while simultaneously cutting taxes and spent money like a drunken sailor in a whorehouse starting a brand new entitlement for seniors and introduced the TARP bail out.

And Reagan put his hands in the pockets of the taxpayers more than a few times.

QUOTE
Reagan may have resisted calls for tax increases, but he ultimately supported them. In 1982 alone, he signed into law not one but two major tax increases. The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) raised taxes by $37.5 billion per year and the Highway Revenue Act raised the gasoline tax by another $3.3 billion.

According to a recent Treasury Department study, TEFRA alone raised taxes by almost 1 percent of the gross domestic product, making it the largest peacetime tax increase in American history. An increase of similar magnitude today would raise more than $100 billion per year.

In 1983, Reagan signed legislation raising the Social Security tax rate. This is a tax increase that lives with us still, since it initiated automatic increases in the taxable wage base. As a consequence, those with moderately high earnings see their payroll taxes rise every single year.

In 1984, Reagan signed another big tax increase in the Deficit Reduction Act. This raised taxes by $18 billion per year or 0.4 percent of GDP. A similar-sized tax increase today would be about $44 billion.

The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 raised taxes yet again. Even the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which was designed to be revenue-neutral, contained a net tax increase in its first 2 years. And the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 raised taxes still more.

The year 1988 appears to be the only year of the Reagan presidency, other than the first, in which taxes were not raised legislatively. Of course, previous tax increases remained in effect. According to a table in the 1990 budget, the net effect of all these tax increases was to raise taxes by $164 billion in 1992, or 2.6 percent of GDP. This is equivalent to almost $300 billion in today's economy.

I say all this not to besmirch Reagan's reputation, but simply to set the record straight. The point being that if Ronald Reagan could be corralled into signing tax increases year after year, it is not unreasonable to think that President Bush may falter as well when push comes to shove.
link


Reagan's legacy is largely bound around an overly sentimental rewriting of history and the strong likelihood he probably didn't have oral sex in the White House. dry.gif
Dingo
1. Was Ronald Reagan among America's greatest Presidents or was he much less than that?
He certainly did public relations well. And he did take the opportunity to improve relations with the Soviets when they were a broken state and had a very western oriented leader. I don't discount the latter given the kind of party he represented. He was like Nixon in that regard. He also seemed to have a fairly clear idea of his limitations. According to his Treasury aid David Stockman he delegated pretty much everything. As I recall from his book Stockman wrote he basically came into office with two ideas, massively cut taxes and increase the military. He didn't like to work very hard and loved to reminisce about Hollywood. Stockman provided him homework by giving him brief descriptions of policy matters followed by multiple choice action alternatives that he could check off. Reagan loved it. He likely was senile through most of his two terms. I think his missile defense idea was terminally dumb but the public loved it and it remains part of our policy to this day. That's a place where conservatives can save us some money. It's kind of sweet, I guess, that Nancy would schedule many of his meetings based on consultation with an astrologist. I think this was after the shooting.


2. What was it about Reagan that made him a success or failure?
Some lucky events and personability and great image management. Rancho del Cielo made a great cowboy prop. Folks just couldn't help liking him, including apparently Khomenie who made sure the hostages came home on his watch and not Carter's, thus insuring his election.


3. Does America need another Chief Executive in the mode of Reagan or was he simply the man for that particular moment?
I guess every president would like to package his appeal but he was overall a poor president. He smiled and knee capped the country too many times. I think the ideology underlying our economic meltdown was generated more from his contribution than any other president. He even provided an early version with his S&L debacle.
AuthorMusician
I'm indifferent. When Reagan got in, I was 28 years old and working for STC, later renamed to StorageTek, then it became a part of Sun Micro which in turn is now a part of Oracle. Reagan's policies impacted me directly because his Justice Department dropped lawsuits against IBM. This is very old computer industry history, but the bottom line for me was that StorageTek suddenly became unimportant for IBM to tolerate as a competitor. There was a whole lot of nasties going on that brought StorageTek into Chapter 11 bankruptcy, and there went the job.

Reagan eliminated my job mad.gif

But even though Colorado entered a deep recession partly due to this and partly from a downturn in the energy industry, other regions of the country were still doing well. Fed Ex picked me up to work in the Memphis campus.

While all this was going on, Reagan's policies were attacking the rust belt, the very Democrats who had voted him in. Fortunately, many of those rust belters were picked up by DP (Data Processing), now IT, because if you had the brains to learn new stuff, you were in demand. And DP was largely not unionized, so the union busting efforts passed the industry by.

Then there was a recession after Reagan left office. GHWB got the blame for that, but it was really Reagan's policies come home to roost. Enter Clinton and the IT boom of the 1990s. That turned into a stupid bubble because venture capitalists were too uniformed to tell when shysters were pulling the wool.

The rest is well known. However, I peg Reagan as starting the assault on the middle class with policies that worked against the people who elected him. That became what we see today: people voting against their own self-interests. It's pretty darn amazing how long this has gone on.

Unemployment is down to 9%. Yay! But it should be a lot lower. Boo. Long-term unemployment has become the norm. So, what's the electorate going to do? Keep on voting in Reagan worshipers or finally rediscover who is on their side?

Seems the change started in 2006, really got going in 2008 and backslid in 2010. The story just keeps on going.

In the end, Reagan could have been a lot worse than he was. However, his administration did spawn Dick Cheney. The novice far outdid the master when it came to heartless brutality. Now it's literally heartless. That tells me there really is a God with a supernatural sense of humor.

Some other things I remember from the Reagan years:

* Nancy consulted with astrologers.

* Ronnie made a joke in the USSR about launching missiles, which started speculation on his mental health.

* People hated Meases to Pieces.

* Computers were always shown in movies as reel-to-reel tape drives and blinking/bleeping dumb terminals.

* Fed Ex topped the 1,000,000 package-a-night level.

* Mobile phones were the size of two paperback novels glued together end-to-end, but you could actually make phone calls with them.

* A 56kbs modem was not available to the public, but Fed Ex had them.

* Movie popcorn still tasted good and was really bad for you.

* The Valley still contained the Valley Girl accent, which has since gone viral across entire generations.

* Offices still contained Selectric typewriters.

* Technical libraries were all paper-based and HUGE!

* Al Gore was pushing for the National Research and Education Network (NREN), aka the Information Superhighway.

* Former President Carter was still blamed for the 1970s inflationary period.

* Sarah Palin was nobody I'd ever heard about, nor was GWB.

* The idea of working from home was just a pipe dream.

* Working the Internet meant knowing Unix commands.
DaytonRocker
Reagan is our reminder that republican principles are a mile wide and inch deep.

Reagan raised taxes every year he was in office - except for his last year. In 1983, he raised payroll taxes and in 1986, he raised corporate taxes - both some of the biggest tax increases in history.

During his campaign, he promised to get rid of two government agencies - Education and Energy. Instead, he added Veteran affairs.

He raised our debt from $700 million to $3 trillion. Hannity plays this clip almost every day on his radio program:

QUOTE
...in the present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem...


Every day listeners will notice that Hannity leaves out the part I highlighted in bold. And they ignore the fact that those words did not match his actions.

When the barracks got blown up by a homicide-suicide bomber in Lebanon, he did what Rush Limbaugh rails against - he cut and run.

Finally, Iran-Contra. The only reason Reagan was not brought down by this fiasco, is because Ollie North lied to protect him. As I've said over and over and over and over and over, had democrats done this, republicans would be holding someone accountable. But as usual, they hold others to standards they themselves do not follow.

Reagan was over a generation ago, and he is the last shining example republicans hold up as a model of conservatism. Republican talk the talk and don't walk the walk. They have no record to run on, so they just change the rhetoric knowing that politics is a team sport to most people.

One of the very few good things Reagan did was de-legitimize terrorists. Too bad republicans ignore that as well - we would spend more time dealing with a true problem without crapping our pants every time these functional retards stomp their feet and soaking trillions of dollars into mostly imaginary threats.

Reagan sucked. Hopefully, this 100 year celebration will open some eyes to how fraudulent the republican party is.

akaCG
Too good not to share:
QUOTE
...
The only good conservative is a dead conservative. That, in a nutshell, describes the age-old tradition of liberals suddenly discovering that once-reviled conservatives were OK after all. Its just we-the-living who are hateful ogres, troglodytes and moperers.

Over the last decade or so, as the giants of the founding generation of modern American conservatism have died, each has been rehabilitated into a gentleman-statesman of a bygone era of conservative decency and open-mindedness.

Barry Goldwater was the first. ...
...
Then there was William F. Buckley, ...
...
But its Ronald Reagan who really stands out. As we celebrate the 100th anniversary of his birth, the Gipper is enjoying yet another status upgrade among liberals.

Barack Obama took a Reagan biography with him on his vacation. A slew of liberals and mainstream journalists (but I repeat myself) complimented Obamas State of the Union address as Reaganesque. Time magazine recently featured the cover story Why Obama (Hearts) Reagan. Meanwhile, the usual suspects are rewriting the same columns about how Reagan was a pragmatist who couldnt run for president today because he was too nice, too reasonable, too (shudder) liberal for todays Republican Party.
...
Its an old game. For instance, in 1980, quirky New Republic writer Henry Fairlie wrote an essay for the Washington Post in which he lamented the rise of Reagan, the most radical activist of them all. The title of his essay: If Reagan Only Were Another Coolidge . . . 

Even then, the only good conservative was a dead conservative.
...

Link: http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/o...oes_rightabout/

Belshazzar
Like most presidencies, the Reagan administration wasn't a solid ideological bloc. Reagan simply applied the coat of paint to the whole thing that made it palatable to the "small government" conservatives, which makes me laugh when his name is brought up even in libertarian circles as some kind of paragon of limited government.

Reagan's economic policies were an odd hybrid of supply side, military Keynesianism, and luck. The end of the energy crises in the '70s allowed Fed chairman Paul Volcker to curb inflation by tightening, which helped cause the early '80s recession through high unemployment. When inflation came under control, Volcker loosened again on the monetary side and Reagan enacted huge tax cuts and record deficit spending (and running up the biggest debt since FDR) on defense on the fiscal side. Reagan later raised taxes numerous times. There was also the whole S&L debacle, which Greenspan kept going long enough for the bomb to blow up in George HW Bush's hands.

Reagan was also lucky when it came to foreign policy, as the USSR was beginning to collapse under its own weight during his terms and a reformer in the form of Gorbachev took office. Here he did a good job spotting this opportunity and helping to bring an end to the Cold War by working with Gorbachev, despite his "evil empire" rhetoric and ironically against the wishes of the Republicans in Congress at the time. He was also willing to take heat for getting out of Lebanon. However, he continued the policy of letting the CIA muck around in foreign affairs and back dictatorships, which has seemingly always ended up coming back to bite us no matter who's president. Iraq, Afghanistan, Nicaragua, El Salvador, etc.

Speaking of luck, presidential historian Robert Dallek includes it as one of the five factors in determining a president's legacy. Here's what he said about Reagan:
QUOTE
Ronald Reagan in foreign affairs, I think, was someone who had certain, very general ideas, general propositions by which he lives: To combat communism, to build up the American military power to assure our national security against any conceivable threat. Now, he was well served by a group of foreign policy advisors who were sensible, who were realistic, people like Caspar Weinberger and George Shultz, Jim Baker, they helped him greatly.

And he was also served by circumstance. He happened to be there at the right time, it was the right moment, the Soviet Union was going into an eclipse, it could not sustain itself with its economic and internal contradictions for all that much longer, and Reagan happened to be there and had the wisdom to take advantage of it. So, it would say he has a general design, but the fact that he appears to be so successful in foreign affairs also has to do a great deal with circumstance, with luck. As the great American essayist Ralph Waldo Emerson said, "Events are in the saddle and ride mankind," and Reagan was fortunate that the events turned in his favor.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience.../reagan-dallek/

Do we need another Reagan now? Unquestionably he's the last thing we need right now. His presidency is basically the prototype for the hybrid religious right/neoliberal politics that the GOP has been espousing for the last 30 years. We know how well that worked out. Funny thing is Reagan would probably be bounced out today as a RINO because his policies, while relying on tax cuts and deregulation/privatization, amounted to something more complex than what current GOPers have boiled it down to: "Always cut taxes, always deregulate." Another Reagan would let the financial sector get away with the massive screw-job they pulled on America even more than Obama has already.

The comparisons of the Reagan recovery with the Obama recovery(?) are laughable as well. Inflationary and deflationary recessions are two different beasts altogether that require different policy to handle. It also ignores the fact that we had another tool in the economic toolbox in the '80s -- lowering interest rates. Bernanke already had rates at 1% before the crash in 2008, severely limiting the effect monetary policy could have on the recovery. There's also that whole thing with Wall Street and the global economy nearly melting down entirely in 2008.
Dingo
QUOTE(Belshazzar @ Feb 5 2011, 11:44 AM) *
Like most presidencies, the Reagan administration wasn't a solid ideological bloc. Reagan simply applied the coat of paint to the whole thing that made it palatable to the "small government" conservatives, which makes me laugh when his name is brought up even in libertarian circles as some kind of paragon of limited government.

An interesting question is how and why such disparate groups are able to pull it together under one tent. Corporatists, Theocrats, Neocons, low level libertarians, tax opponents, military promoters, states righters, gun nuts, cultural and racial chauvinists, AGW denialists, constitutionalists, Reagan lovers, Beck and Limbaugh lovers etc. That might be an interesting challenge for memetics to find the sticky glue that attaches these cultural groups, personalities and memes together under one party.
nighttimer
Need proof that the legacy of Ronald Reagan has reached a ridiculous new low in revisionism?

Check this out:

Who was the first black president?

Two decades before the election of Barack Obama, novelist Toni Morrison dubbed Bill Clinton "our first black President." She even said that Clinton was "blacker than any actual black person who could ever be elected in our children's lifetime."

Well, I could make an even stronger case for my father, Ronald Reagan, as "our first black president" -- but I won't make that claim. I don't want to diminish the justifiable pride African-Americans take in having a president who is genetically and culturally black. Our first black president is Barack Obama.

But the past two years have made one thing clear: Ronald Reagan was a far better friend to black Americans than Barack Obama has been. Just compare the Reagan and Obama records. Under Obama, black unemployment rose from 12.6 percent in January 2009 to 16.0 percent today. This means that black unemployment has increased by more than one-fourth since Obama took office.

On this anniversary of Dr. King's birthday, less than a month before the hundredth birthday of Ronald Reagan, it's fitting to note that Ronald Reagan did more to improve the lives of African-Americans than any other president since Abraham Lincoln. Unfortunately, we have to acknowledge that America's first black president has made life worse for us all -- and especially for black Americans.

History does not judge presidents by the color of their skin, but by the content of their policies.


Michael Reagan

This is such a brain-dead commentary even reposting it makes me feel like I'm validating it, but to let rank stupidity go unaddressed allows a lie to live.

I don't think Reagan was a racist, but he surely did not mind providing aid and comfort to those who were such as the South Africa government and their system of White supremacy known as apartheid. Reagan was real likable to the likes of P.W. Botha and the other bigots in Pretoria. For Nelson Mandela and the millions of Black South Africans suffering under the boot heel of the White minority? Probably not so much.

Reagan went so far as to veto The Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986 which banned all new U.S. trade and investment in South Africa and imposed sanctions against the regime. His veto was overridden by the Senate 78 to 21 and the House by 313 to 83. Congress handed Reagan a history-making rebuke as it marked the first time in the 20th century a foreign policy veto had been overridden.

Reagan could be on the wrong side of history and do it with a big ol' smile and convince his followers it was all sunshine and rainbows.

It takes a special politician to pull off that kind of trick. It takes the greatest Jedi mind trick of all time to rewrite history to make Ronald Reagan a better friend to the Black community than Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. Michael Reagan attempt to do so should me rightly ridiculed as the epic FAIL that it is.
moif
1. Was Ronald Reagan among America's greatest Presidents or was he much less than that?

I think he was much less than that. In fact I don't think the USA has had a decent president in my lifetime, though Bill Clinton came closest.

Reagan was, and still is a Cold War monster to me. A parody of a politician, produced like a Hollywood/Frankenstein monster, to convey an impression of implacable strength. He was more like a weapon than a politician. Thatcher was similar, only she had actual principles, as implacable as they were.

Reagan often gets credited as having ended the Cold War, but I think that credit belongs to Mikhail Gorbachev. Reagan might have scared a lot of people, but I think the Soviet Union was destroyed by its own internal failures and American defence super spending was merely one factor amongst many. Quite apart from anything else, the real threat from the USSR died with Stalin and the rest was merely war by proxy. If anything I think Reagan might have made it more difficult for the Soviets to finally give up because no one likes to lose to a crowing winner, and if history teaches us anything about the consequences of 1989, its that the USA is a very poor winner.


2. What was it about Reagan that made him a success or failure?

The fact that he never seemed real, and that hindsight has shown just how duplicitous his government was.


3. Does America need another Chief Executive in the mode of Reagan or was he simply the man for that particular moment?

No one needs another Ronald Reagan. I'm not even sure if he was needed when he came to power.
akaCG
QUOTE(moif @ Feb 7 2011, 05:52 AM) *
...
... If anything I think Reagan might have made it more difficult for the Soviets to finally give up because no one likes to lose to a crowing winner, ...

You think that, had Carter won re-election, the Soviets would have said to themselves "This is a President to whom we can give up without losing face. Let's not waste this opportunity."? Really?

QUOTE(moif @ Feb 7 2011, 05:52 AM) *
...
... and if history teaches us anything about the consequences of 1989, its that the USA is a very poor winner.
...

Care to elaborate?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EDITED TO ADD more stuff that's too good not to share:
QUOTE
...
The liberal revision of Reagan has been unfolding for a while now, and at the center of it is the effort to separate him from his conservative beliefs. Joshua Green wrote in The Washington Monthly in January 2003 that many of [Reagans] actions as president wound up facilitating liberal objectives. What this clamor of adulation is seeking to deny is that beyond his conservative legacy, Ronald Reagan has bequeathed a liberal one. He raised taxes! He talked to the Soviets and reached arms agreements! Greens article was provocatively adorned with a cartoon rendering of Reagan as FDR, complete with upturned cigarette holder. ...
...
Jonathan Rauch offers the most complete case for Reagan as a crypto-liberal pragmatist. In a 2009 National Journal article entitled Republicans Have Reagan All Wrong, Rauch asserts that Reagan was not a Reaganite. ...
...
There is something passing strange about the way in which liberals now claim to understand Reagan better than todays conservatives do, yet somehow were unable to make him out when he was right in front of them. And nothing belies the current liberal revisionism more than the trope that the Reagan years were a model of comity compared with todays polarized climate. To be sure, Reagan could clink glasses and swap Irish jokes with Tip ONeill, but they often argued bluntly in public and in private. We have forgotten, for example, this ONeill attack on Reagan: The evil is in the White House at the present time. And that evil is a man who has no care and no concern for the working class of America and the future generations of America, and who likes to ride a horse. Hes cold. Hes mean. Hes got ice water for blood.

It should never be forgotten that the Left hated Reagan just as lustily as they hated George W. Bush, and with some of the same venomous affectations, such as the reductio ad Hitlerum. The key difference is that in Reagans years there was no Internet with which to magnify these derangements, and the 24-hour cable-news cycle was in its infancy. But the signs were certainly abundant. In 1982, the Madame Tussauds Wax Museum in London held a vote for the most hated people of all time, with the result being: Hitler, Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, and Dracula. Democratic congressman William Clay of Missouri charged that Reagan was trying to replace the Bill of Rights with fascist precepts lifted verbatim from Mein Kampf. A desperate Jimmy Carter charged that Reagan was engaging in stirrings of hate in the 1980 campaign. Los Angeles Times cartoonist Paul Conrad drew a panel depicting Reagan plotting a fascist putsch in a darkened Munich beer hall. Harry Stein (now a conservative convert) wrote in Esquire that the voters who supported Reagan were like the good Germans in Hitlers Germany. In The Nation, Alan Wolfe wrote: The United States has embarked on a course so deeply reactionary, so negative and mean-spirited, so chauvinistic and self-deceptive that our times may soon rival the McCarthy era.
...


And, ...:
QUOTE
...
Mark Twain is credited with saying that history doesnt repeat itself, but it rhymes. Reagans ascent coincided with the tax revolt of the late 1970s, and the tax revolt looks similar to todays Tea Party protests. Liberals attacked the tax revolt in the same terms they use to attack todays Tea Party. Sen. George McGovern worried that the tax revolt had undertones of racism. Byron Dorgan, then North Dakota tax commissioner and later a senator, said that a vote for Californias Proposition 13 (a property-tax cap the states voters enacted in 1978) was a vote for latent prejudice. The Washington Posts Haynes Johnson said the measure was an exhibition of widespread public mean-spiritedness.
...
During the 1980s, there was little popular ferment behind Reagan and Meeses campaign to revive constitutional originalism, but they pursued it anyway. When todays liberals disingenuously invoke Reagan against the Tea Party or Republican attempts in Congress to restrain the government, Reagans constitutional views should be thrown in their faces. The tea partiers might well be considered Reagans children.

Several pundits suggested that the 1994 election, which delivered the first GOP House majority in 40 years, should be thought of as Reagans third landslide. If so, November 2 of last year could be regarded as his fourth. And if conservatives remain faithful to Ronald Reagans principles and practices, it wont be the last. Happy 100th birthday, Mr. President.
...

Link: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/print/258864

Gray Seal
QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth)
Some of you might be surprised just how much Ronald Reagan's presidency produced by way of deficit spending, all the while RR dissing the Democrats about "tax and spend."


This point brought forth by Paladin Elspeth is the number one legacy from the Reagan years. Reagan was an actor. His skills were utilized and the relationship with business, our current crony capitalism, flourished. Since, we have not been able to shake this legacy with a string of Presidents built upon the Reagan model. Presidents define their respective parties. The Democrats and Republicans need someone who is charismatic and knows how to say great things. Then, do what is good for the insiders, and most of all, spend as much as you dare. The two parties learned well. Presidents do not need to do what they say, just voicing the right thing is enough and then you will have permission to do whatever, even the opposite.

I voted "indifferent". So many Presidents like him. He was as President, as they have been, a reflection of the people. We are oblivious. We love a story. Clueless as to the importance of freedom, failing to value it, and naive when it trickles away. Americans are pompous, loving our story, voicing principle and failing to vote for those who will govern on principle. We have been stuck on knowing we are number one, rich and powerful. Reagan convinced us we were rich and power and great. Americans loved the story. Deficit spending, lousy use of the military, tremendous growth of government...who cares about that as long as we are rich and powerful?

He may stand out to those who especially like a good story because he was an excellent story teller. But for me, who wants good governance, he is lost in the clutter.
akaCG
QUOTE(Gray Seal @ Feb 7 2011, 09:51 AM) *
...
I voted "indifferent". So many Presidents like him. He was as President, as they have been, a reflection of the people. We are oblivious. We love a story. Clueless as to the importance of freedom, failing to value it, and naive when it trickles away. Americans are pompous, loving our story, voicing principle and failing to vote for those who will govern on principle. We have been stuck on knowing we are number one, rich and powerful. Reagan convinced us we were rich and power and great. Americans loved the story. Deficit spending, lousy use of the military, tremendous growth of government...who cares about that as long as we are rich and powerful?

He may stand out to those who especially like a good story because he was an excellent story teller. But for me, who wants good governance, he is lost in the clutter.

1. Which President(s) stand out to you in terms of your standards of "good governance"?

2. How do Americans of that time differ from Americans now in terms of obliviousness, love of a story, pompousness, succeptibility to being convinced that America is rich, great, and powerful, etc.?

NOTE: Perhaps, in order not to drift off-topic, you might start a new thread on the above.
Raptavio
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Feb 6 2011, 11:11 PM) *
Reagan went so far as to veto The Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986 which banned all new U.S. trade and investment in South Africa and imposed sanctions against the regime. His veto was overridden by the Senate 78 to 21 and the House by 313 to 83. Congress handed Reagan a history-making rebuke as it marked the first time in the 20th century a foreign policy veto had been overridden.

Reagan could be on the wrong side of history and do it with a big ol' smile and convince his followers it was all sunshine and rainbows.

It takes a special politician to pull off that kind of trick. It takes the greatest Jedi mind trick of all time to rewrite history to make Ronald Reagan a better friend to the Black community than Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. Michael Reagan attempt to do so should me rightly ridiculed as the epic FAIL that it is.


You forgot the biggest slap in the face of all.

Reagan kicked off his Presidential campaign in Mississippi near the site of an infamous lynching with a speech that was a paean to "states' rights" -- which we know as an Atwater-trademarked dogwhistle about civil rights.
akaCG
QUOTE(Raptavio @ Feb 7 2011, 10:25 AM) *
...
You forgot the biggest slap in the face of all.

Reagan kicked off his Presidential campaign in Mississippi near the site of an infamous lynching with a speech that was a paean to "states' rights" -- which we know as an Atwater-trademarked dogwhistle about civil rights.

Aah yes, the ole "dogwhistle" trope.

QUOTE
...
Political scientists Richard Johnston (University of Pennsylvania) and Byron Shafer (University of Wisconsin) have argued that this phenomenon had more to do with the economics than it had to do with race. In The End of Southern Exceptionalism, Johnston and Shafer wrote that the Republicans' gains in the South corresponded to the growth of the upper middle class in that region. They suggested that such individuals believed their economic interests were better served by the Republicans than the Democrats. According to Johnston and Shafer, working-class white voters in the South continued to vote for Democrats for national office until the 1990s. In summary, Shafer told The New York Times, "[whites] voted by their economic preferences, not racial preferences".[6]

In 1980 Republican candidate Ronald Reagan's proclaiming support for "states' rights" at his first Southern campaign stop was cited as evidence[7][8] that the Republican Party was building upon the Southern strategy again. The location was alleged to be significant - Reagan spoke at the Neshoba County Fair near Philadelphia, Mississippi, the county where the three civil rights workers were murdered during 1964's Freedom Summer,[9][10][11] although political speeches from local, state, and national politicians at the fair had been a long-standing tradition at the Fair dating back to 1896, with Jack Kemp, John Glenn, and Michael Dukakis among the politicians who have spoken there.[12]

In 1976, Jimmy Carter won most of the Southern states without offending northern Democrats, explaining, “I have no trouble pitching for Wallace votes and black votes at the same time."[13]
...

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

Alas, to paraphraze the ole saying, one can't teach old dogwhistle-hearing "ears" new tricks. They'll just keep "hearing" what they want to hear, and ignore that which they don't want to.

Raptavio
Trope, is it?

Emphasis mine -- and I censored the N-word, which appears unedited in the link.
QUOTE
Atwater: As to the whole Southern strategy that Harry S. Dent, Sr. and others put together in 1968, opposition to the Voting Rights Act would have been a central part of keeping the South. Now [the new Southern Strategy of Ronald Reagan] doesn't have to do that. All you have to do to keep the South is for Reagan to run in place on the issues he's campaigned on since 1964 and that's fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cut taxes, you know, the whole cluster.
Questioner: But the fact is, isn't it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps?
Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, "N-----, n-----, n-----." By 1968 you can't say "n-----" -- that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me -- because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "N-----, n-----."[6][7]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Atwater

Atwater was a Reagan strategist and a member of his administration.

Now, whether or not you think the "dogwhistles" achieve their stated objective or not, they were deliberately and calculatedly employed as such, in the 1980 Congressional and Presidential elections -- from the very mouth of the master of the craft, it is a matter of historical record.

And that, too, is part of Reagan's legacy.

You're right though, akaCG -- some ears will only hear what they want to hear.

EDITED to remove ANSI character coding problems.
Gray Seal
QUOTE(akaCG @ Feb 7 2011, 09:05 AM) *
QUOTE(Gray Seal @ Feb 7 2011, 09:51 AM) *
...
I voted "indifferent". So many Presidents like him. He was as President, as they have been, a reflection of the people. We are oblivious. We love a story. Clueless as to the importance of freedom, failing to value it, and naive when it trickles away. Americans are pompous, loving our story, voicing principle and failing to vote for those who will govern on principle. We have been stuck on knowing we are number one, rich and powerful. Reagan convinced us we were rich and power and great. Americans loved the story. Deficit spending, lousy use of the military, tremendous growth of government...who cares about that as long as we are rich and powerful?

He may stand out to those who especially like a good story because he was an excellent story teller. But for me, who wants good governance, he is lost in the clutter.

1. Which President(s) stand out to you in terms of your standards of "good governance"?

2. How do Americans of that time differ from Americans now in terms of obliviousness, love of a story, pompousness, succeptibility to being convinced that America is rich, great, and powerful, etc.?

NOTE: Perhaps, in order not to drift off-topic, you might start a new thread on the above.

I will not answer your question entirely but I will respond to aspects which are this topic.

All Presidents have some public appeal whether it is charisma, accomplishments, looks, or familiarity. Many Presidents have had political motivations beyond principles, motivations to benefit those the President deems worthy of advantage over others.

I see Reagan to be the first in an era where certain of these traits are so prominent. The expansive rate of growth in government roles. The fatherly big government role the President has taken. The reliance on debt funded government. The reliance on the Fed to assist political aims and the Fed cronyism with banks. The use of the military as a tool to project the image of power.

The people are caught up in "what is in it for me?" Advantage motivated government and "image is everything" era began with Reagan. Spend a lot. People are looking for their piece of the pie of government spending. Why question anyone else doing the same? Why be perturbed by crony capitalism as they themselves are seeking similar advantage? I do think this era does emphasis all of these traits more than any time in history. It is an American people thing. Reagan was the first in the string of Presidents reflecting the will of the people of this era. We the people have lost the rudder of freedom principles.
akaCG
My "ears" are just fine, thanks, "Raptavio". They can "hear" all sorts of "sounds" at all sorts of "frequencies", and process them all. Goal being to take account of both the bad and the good, and see if, and to what degree, the resulting net is negative or positive.

Let's give your "ears" another test, and see how they do, shall we?

First, ... [WARNING: the following excerpts come from an article written by someone, as well as references some people, belonging to that group of Conservatives/Republicans whom some of you think of as "uncle Toms", "house slaves", "race traitors", "oreos", and such] ...
QUOTE
...
... That April [1976], Carter said he opposed government programs to inject black families into a white neighborhood just to create some sort of integration. He added: I have nothing against a community that is made up of people who are Polish, or who are Czechoslovakians, or who are French Canadians or who are blacks trying to maintain the ethnic purity of their neighborhoods.

As the April 19, 1976 Time reported:

Atlanta Mayor Maynard Jackson last week postponed plans to endorse Jimmy Carter and angrily exclaimed: Is there no white politician I can trust? Jesse Jackson, director of Chicagos Operation PUSH, called Carters views a throwback to Hitlerian racism.
...

Hey, you think maybe Atwater was advising Jimmy "I have no trouble pitching for Wallace votes and black votes at the same time" Carter back in '76?

Or is it just that Dems can get away with saying stuff like that (and worse) out in the open, as long they toe the line on all sorts of Left/Liberal/Progressive issues? Kinda like that high-powered feminist who said/wrote that she'd have been happy to put on her knee-pads and do for Clinton what Lewinsky did for him, as long as that meant that he remained in Oval Office?

Second, ...
QUOTE
...
As president, Reagan named Samuel Pierce, a black man, as his secretary of Housing and Urban Development. While Pierce was outside Reagans inner circle, he was in Reagans Cabinet. In 1982, Reagan promoted Roscoe Robinson to become the Armys first black four-star general. Reagan also helped place Clarence Thomas on his path to the United States Supreme Court by naming him chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Reagans critics may dismiss these appointees as tokens. Of course, they also would denounce Reagan for racism if he had zero appointees of color. Either way, Reagan loses.
...
... on June 29, 1982, President Reagan approved a 25-year extension of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

The right to vote is the crown jewel of American liberties, and we will not see its luster diminished, Reagan said that day. Citizens must have complete confidence in the sanctity of their right to vote, and thats what this legislation is all about. He added: As long as I am in a position to uphold the Constitution, no barrier will come between our citizens and the voting booth.

Reagan signed this measure at a White House ceremony attended by some 300 people including Senator Kennedy and bipartisan members of Congress. Civil-rights veterans were there, too, including the Rev. Jesse Jackson; Benjamin Hooks, then-president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People; Urban League president John Jacob; the Rev. Joseph Lowery, head of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference; and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.s widow, Coretta Scott King.
...
On November 2, 1983, President Reagan made Dr. Kings birthday a federal holiday, the first and only such honor for a black American.
...
After endorsing the measure before some 200 guests, Reagan handed his signature pen to Kings widow.

As UPIs then-White House correspondent Helen Thomas wrote: When it was over, the guests joined in softly singing, We Shall Overcome, the battle cry that symbolized Kings struggle for racial equality.

According to the Washington Post, Jesse Jackson, who attended the event, said of Reagan that day: Weve all had high and low moments, and this is one of his high moments.

It was a beautiful day, and a beautiful statement was made, Coretta Scott King told reporters in the Rose Garden. And the president spoke as president of all the people today.
...
President Reagan named Lieutenant General Colin Powell Americas first black national-security adviser in November 1987. He served through Reagans second term and was a major player in Reagans diplomacy with the Soviet Unions final leader, Mikhail Gorbachev.
...

Link: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/print/222886


Now THAT's some "southern strategy", ain't it? What a great way to keep them Southern "crackers" happy! Yeah, they musta been tellin' themselves:"Well, I know he keeps apointin' all these [n-word]s into his Cabinet and stuff, and he got hisself surrounded with a bunch of [n-word]s and [n-word] lovin' libruls when he signed that law makin' the birthday of that [n-word] King into a nashnul holiday, and he gave even more reason for [n-word]s to keep bein' uppity and stuff by extendin' that Votin' Rights Act, but by gosh by golly, 'long as he says the words "states rights" once or twice a year, I'll just keep on pullin' that lever for 'im! Ronnie Power!"

Well? Your dogwhistle "ears" picking up any of that? Or are they only capable of letting through just the same ole "Atwater ... Reagan adviser ... states rights ... southern strategy ... Atwater ... southern strategy ... Reagan ... states rights ... code words ... southern strategy ..."?

Raptavio
QUOTE(akaCG @ Feb 7 2011, 01:58 PM) *
Let's give your "ears" another test, and see how they do, shall we?

First, ... [WARNING: the following excerpts come from an article written by someone, as well as references some people, belonging to that group of Conservatives/Republicans whom some of you think of as "uncle Toms", "house slaves", "race traitors", "oreos", and such] ...
QUOTE
...
... That April [1976], Carter said he opposed government programs to inject black families into a white neighborhood just to create some sort of integration. He added: I have nothing against a community that is made up of people who are Polish, or who are Czechoslovakians, or who are French Canadians or who are blacks trying to maintain the ethnic purity of their neighborhoods.

As the April 19, 1976 Time reported:

Atlanta Mayor Maynard Jackson last week postponed plans to endorse Jimmy Carter and angrily exclaimed: Is there no white politician I can trust? Jesse Jackson, director of Chicagos Operation PUSH, called Carters views a throwback to Hitlerian racism.
...

Hey, you think maybe Atwater was advising Jimmy "I have no trouble pitching for Wallace votes and black votes at the same time" Carter back in '76?

Or is it just that Dems can get away with saying stuff like that (and worse) out in the open, as long they toe the line on all sorts of Left/Liberal/Progressive issues? Kinda like that high-powered feminist who said/wrote that she'd have been happy to put on her knee-pads and do for Clinton what Lewinsky did for him, as long as that meant that he remained in Oval Office?


So... what's your point? "Dems do it too?" You're the one who accused me of imagining a dogwhistle, and I just proved to you, in Lee Atwater's own words, that said dogwhistle was not only real, it was entirely deliberate. Your tu quoque has exactly squat-all to do with that.

QUOTE
Second, ...

(snip)


Now THAT's some "southern strategy", ain't it? What a great way to keep them Southern "crackers" happy! Yeah, they musta been tellin' themselves:"Well, I know he keeps apointin' all these [n-word]s into his Cabinet and stuff, and he got hisself surrounded with a bunch of [n-word]s and [n-word] lovin' libruls when he signed that law makin' the birthday of that [n-word] King into a nashnul holiday, and he gave even more reason for [n-word]s to keep bein' uppity and stuff by extendin' that Votin' Rights Act, but by gosh by golly, 'long as he says the words "states rights" once or twice a year, I'll just keep on pullin' that lever for 'im! Ronnie Power!"

Well? Your dogwhistle "ears" picking up any of that? Or are they only capable of letting through just the same ole "Atwater ... Reagan adviser ... states rights ... southern strategy ... Atwater ... southern strategy ... Reagan ... states rights ... code words ... southern strategy ..."?


Again... what's your point? Reagan did some good things for civil rights as President (and presumably, some as governor of California, too). He also did some sucky things for civil rights, as nighttimer alluded to, not the least of which was his relationship with South Africa during Apartheid. Viewed through the lens of 2011, of course, things are a little harsher than they ought to be given the times (after all, even Thomas Jefferson owned slaves...) but it's still a mixed bag.

Of course, again, none of that has squat-all to do with the fact that Reagan's post-nomination campaign kickoff "states' rights" speech was a deliberate dogwhistle, which you not only denied, but derided me for pointing out. And your best response to it is a "tu quoque" about Jimmy Carter and a "what about all the good things Reagan did?" -- this doesn't make your denial any less mistaken, nor your accusation any more defensible. So why not cut the bluster, acknowledge Reagan's deliberate dogwhistle, and then make your argument that despite said speech, Reagan's got a very good record of advancing civil rights and viewed in context of the times and the actions of his contemporaries that it wasn't so horrid.

But to try to deny fact with this kind of bluster is just stupid.
moif
QUOTE(akaCG)
You think that, had Carter won re-election, the Soviets would have said to themselves "This is a President to whom we can give up without losing face. Let's not waste this opportunity."? Really?
No. I'm saying I don't believe that it made any difference who was president of the USA or even what the leaders of the USSR thought. The Soviet Union was doomed. It was already starting to crumble from within.

I don't know what would have happened if Carter had been president instead of Reagan, but I suspect the dissolve from Soviet state to democracy would have ultimately been a lot easier for the former Soviet nations if he had, and then we wouldn't have the malicious plutarchy which currently rules Russia.


QUOTE(akaCG)
QUOTE(moif)
and if history teaches us anything about the consequences of 1989, its that the USA is a very poor winner.
Care to elaborate?
Certainly. I am refering to the belittling attitude American politicians and state officials displayed towards Russia in general and Boris Yeltsin in particular.
Paladin Elspeth
QUOTE(moif)
No. I'm saying I don't believe that it made any difference who was president of the USA or even what the leaders of the USSR thought. The Soviet Union was doomed. It was already starting to crumble from within.

I think you're probably right. Reagan served as a cheerleader ("Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!") but it was the people themselves who brought down the Soviet Union, and for that they deserve credit. And Boris Yeltsin certainly deserves credit in this.

The current Russian plutocracy is obviously not the representative democracy that those who tore down the wall in East Berlin wanted. There's a lot of work that is needed for justice, fairness, and true representation of the people. But look who's talking...

Another area where Reagan did not lead was with research into Acquired Immunodeficiency Disorder Syndrome, AIDS. Our late friend Wertz would have most certainly brought it up in this thread. He lost a lot of friends to AIDS during Reagan's administration, and Reagan's folksy charisma did nothing to quell his anger at the lack of caring toward the affliction that killed so many gays. Any group of people who are considered "throwaways" by virtue of their differences from the mainstream will resent leaders who treat them that way.

I think that it is the image of Ronald Reagan, the legend that has surrounded him, that has many conservatives and Republicans in awe of him. He is a lot easier to honor and elevate now that he cannot open his mouth and express positions with which these folks would most likely disagree.
Raptavio
It is true of all Presidents that they generally receive credit or blame, deserved or undeserved, for events that happen during and immediately after their tenures in office.

Reagan thus gets credit for the collapse of the Soviet Union. Clinton gets credit for the prosperity of the 90s. Carter gets the blame for the gas price crisis. Bush gets the blame for the recession of '08-'09.

Whether and to what extent these Presidents are responsible for these events .... well, those are difficult questions.

We do know that under Reagan the debt exploded, and budgets as passed by Congress -- and budgets ultimately spent (not the same thing) -- were proximate to Reagan's submitted budgets, being usually just under and just over Reagan's mark, respectively.

We do know that under Reagan the arms race escalated, and the Soviet Union was brought to economic collapse. The two may or not have a causal relationship.

We may never know with certainty what Reagan's 'cause' produced the end 'effect' or if another President with radically different policies would have yielded similar outcomes. But that's part of the fun of ad.gif, isn't it?
akaCG
QUOTE(moif @ Feb 7 2011, 04:07 PM) *
QUOTE(akaCG)
You think that, had Carter won re-election, the Soviets would have said to themselves "This is a President to whom we can give up without losing face. Let's not waste this opportunity."? Really?
No. I'm saying I don't believe that it made any difference who was president of the USA or even what the leaders of the USSR thought. The Soviet Union was doomed. It was already starting to crumble from within.

I don't know what would have happened if Carter had been president instead of Reagan, but I suspect the dissolve from Soviet state to democracy would have ultimately been a lot easier for the former Soviet nations if he had, and then we wouldn't have the malicious plutarchy which currently rules Russia.
...

Well, of course none of us here can really know. However, as far as things that one can reasonably suspect are concerned, let me leave you with:

Case #1:

Jul 15, 1979: President Carter delivers his "Crisis of Confidence" (otherwise known as his "Malaise") speech.

Nov 4, 1979: Islamic militants take over American embassy in Tehran.

Dec 27, 1979: Soviets invade Afghanistan.

Case #2:

Aug 3, 1981:
President Reagan issues 48-hour ultimatum to air controllers.

Aug 5, 1981:
President Reagan follows up on his ultimatum.

Aug 5-6, 1981:
Largest (by far) 24-hour volume of both outgoing and incoming diplomatic "cables" traffic between D.C.-based foreign embassies/consulates/trade missions and their home countries in the history of the U.S. Department of State's monitoring such things occurs.

Next 3 years: Much geopolitical testing and probing poker-like activity on both sides occurs.

Nov 6, 1984:
President Reagan is re-elected, in a 59% of the popular vote landslide and 49 state Electoral College slaughter.

Mar 11, 1985:
Mikhail Gorbachev is chosen as General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.

Think about it.

QUOTE(moif @ Feb 7 2011, 04:07 PM) *
...
QUOTE(akaCG)
QUOTE(moif)
and if history teaches us anything about the consequences of 1989, its that the USA is a very poor winner.
Care to elaborate?
Certainly. I am refering to the belittling attitude American politicians and state officials displayed towards Russia in general and Boris Yeltsin in particular.

The drunken and clownish Yeltsin belittled himself, and by extension his office and his country. One of the reasons why the Russians went with Putin is because they wanted a leader who wouldn't embarrass them on the world stage.

To wit:

Yeltsin.

Putin.

ps:
You should hear my mom (Russian born and raised) on the subject of Yeltsin. Her cheeks still, after all this time, redden whenever someone mentions his name. Both from embarrassment and anger at the free-for-all national resource grand theft that he was the first to allow to happen at the hands of, among others (both Russian and Western), his own cronies from his Sverdlovsk Oblast days and their Siberian friends.

IOW, it would be quite accurate to say that, in my parents' house, there are three topics that are off-limits at dinner time: religion, politics, and ... Yeltsin. smile.gif

EDITED TO ADD:

ps 2:
At my dinner parties, however, all of the aforementioned three subjects are allowed. Hmmm ... I wonder if that's why, for the longest time, they've never gotten beyond 3 couples. Oh, well. At least I'll always have 2 spare dinner settings available in case somebody breaks somethin'. mrsparkle.gif

Maybe Maybe Not
QUOTE(akaCG @ Feb 7 2011, 06:42 PM) *
Case #1:

Jul 15, 1979: President Carter delivers his "Crisis of Confidence" (otherwise known as his "Malaise") speech.

Nov 4, 1979: Islamic militants take over American embassy in Tehran.

Dec 27, 1979: Soviets invade Afghanistan.

Case #2:

Aug 3, 1981:
President Reagan issues 48-hour ultimatum to air controllers.

Aug 5, 1981:
President Reagan follows up on his ultimatum.

Aug 5-6, 1981:
Largest (by far) 24-hour volume of both outgoing and incoming diplomatic "cables" traffic between D.C.-based foreign embassies/consulates/trade missions and their home countries in the history of the U.S. Department of State's monitoring such things occurs.

Next 3 years: Much geopolitical testing and probing poker-like activity on both sides occurs.

Nov 6, 1984:
President Reagan is re-elected, in a 59% of the popular vote landslide and 49 state Electoral College slaughter.

Mar 11, 1985:
Mikhail Gorbachev is chosen as General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.

Think about it.
Yes. I have thought about it.

Clearly, Carter's speech caused Islamic militants to take over the American embassy in Tehran, and the Soviets to invade Afghanistan.

And, clearly, Reagan's ultimatum to the air traffic controllers caused Gorbachev to be chosen as the General Secretary of the Communist Party.



George W. Bush took the oath of office of President of the U.S in January 2001.
In September 2001 the U.S was attacked by Islamic militants.

Think about it.
akaCG
QUOTE(Maybe Maybe Not @ Feb 7 2011, 06:55 PM) *
QUOTE(akaCG @ Feb 7 2011, 06:42 PM) *
Case #1:

Jul 15, 1979: President Carter delivers his "Crisis of Confidence" (otherwise known as his "Malaise") speech.

Nov 4, 1979: Islamic militants take over American embassy in Tehran.

Dec 27, 1979: Soviets invade Afghanistan.

Case #2:

Aug 3, 1981:
President Reagan issues 48-hour ultimatum to air controllers.

Aug 5, 1981:
President Reagan follows up on his ultimatum.

Aug 5-6, 1981:
Largest (by far) 24-hour volume of both outgoing and incoming diplomatic "cables" traffic between D.C.-based foreign embassies/consulates/trade missions and their home countries in the history of the U.S. Department of State's monitoring such things occurs.

Next 3 years: Much geopolitical testing and probing poker-like activity on both sides occurs.

Nov 6, 1984:
President Reagan is re-elected, in a 59% of the popular vote landslide and 49 state Electoral College slaughter.

Mar 11, 1985:
Mikhail Gorbachev is chosen as General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.

Think about it.
Yes. I have thought about it.

Clearly, Carter's speech caused Islamic militants to take over the American embassy in Tehran, and the Soviets to invade Afghanistan.
...

You seem to have missed the bit about what one can know versus what can reasonably suspect in the post to which you are apparently responding.

IOW, your "Clearly" above is, I don't hate to say it, a ... strawman. As is the one in the next bit of your post:

QUOTE(Maybe Maybe Not @ Feb 7 2011, 06:55 PM) *
...
And, clearly, Reagan's ultimatum to the air traffic controllers caused Gorbachev to be chosen as the General Secretary of the Communist Party.
...

Skipping over a few things there, bud. Not the least of which is the "little" detail involving Reagan's getting re-elected in a 59% of the popular vote landslide and 49 state Electoral College slaughter.

QUOTE(Maybe Maybe Not @ Feb 7 2011, 06:55 PM) *
...
George W. Bush took the oath of office of President of the U.S in January 2001.
In September 2001 the U.S was attacked by Islamic militants.

Think about it.

Oh, I have. Have you?

You really think that something like Reagan's getting re-elected by winning almost 60% of the popular vote and 49 states in the Electoral College vote sends the same kind of message to our nation's friends/near-friends/reluctant friends/unreliable friends/sometime enemies/all-time enemies as GW's losing the popular vote and having the Supreme Court decide the results?

nighttimer
QUOTE(akaCG @ Feb 7 2011, 02:58 PM) *
As president, Reagan named Samuel Pierce, a black man, as his secretary of Housing and Urban Development. While Pierce was outside Reagan’s inner circle, he was in Reagan’s Cabinet. In 1982, Reagan promoted Roscoe Robinson to become the Army’s first black four-star general. Reagan also helped place Clarence Thomas on his path to the United States Supreme Court by naming him chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Reagan’s critics may dismiss these appointees as “tokens.” Of course, they also would denounce Reagan for racism if he had zero appointees of color. Either way, Reagan loses.
...
... on June 29, 1982, President Reagan approved a 25-year extension of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

‘‘The right to vote is the crown jewel of American liberties, and we will not see its luster diminished,’’ Reagan said that day. “Citizens must have complete confidence in the sanctity of their right to vote, and that’s what this legislation is all about.’’ He added: ‘‘As long as I am in a position to uphold the Constitution, no barrier will come between our citizens and the voting booth.’’

Reagan signed this measure at a White House ceremony attended by some 300 people including Senator Kennedy and bipartisan members of Congress. Civil-rights veterans were there, too, including the Rev. Jesse Jackson; Benjamin Hooks, then-president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People; Urban League president John Jacob; the Rev. Joseph Lowery, head of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference; and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s widow, Coretta Scott King.
...
On November 2, 1983, President Reagan made Dr. King’s birthday a federal holiday, the first and only such honor for a black American.
...
After endorsing the measure before some 200 guests, Reagan handed his signature pen to King’s widow.

As UPI’s then-White House correspondent Helen Thomas wrote: “When it was over, the guests joined in softly singing, ‘We Shall Overcome,’ the battle cry that symbolized King’s struggle for racial equality.”

According to the Washington Post, Jesse Jackson, who attended the event, said of Reagan that day: “We’ve all had high and low moments, and this is one of his high moments.”

“It was a beautiful day, and a beautiful statement was made,” Coretta Scott King told reporters in the Rose Garden. “And the president spoke as president of all the people today.”
...
President Reagan named Lieutenant General Colin Powell America’s first black national-security adviser in November 1987. He served through Reagan’s second term and was a major player in Reagan’s diplomacy with the Soviet Union’s final leader, Mikhail Gorbachev.

Link: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/print/222886


Now THAT's some "southern strategy", ain't it? What a great way to keep them Southern "crackers" happy! Yeah, they musta been tellin' themselves:"Well, I know he keeps apointin' all these [n-word]s into his Cabinet and stuff, and he got hisself surrounded with a bunch of [n-word]s and [n-word] lovin' libruls when he signed that law makin' the birthday of that [n-word] King into a nashnul holiday, and he gave even more reason for [n-word]s to keep bein' uppity and stuff by extendin' that Votin' Rights Act, but by gosh by golly, 'long as he says the words "states rights" once or twice a year, I'll just keep on pullin' that lever for 'im! Ronnie Power!"

Well? Your dogwhistle "ears" picking up any of that? Or are they only capable of letting through just the same ole "Atwater ... Reagan adviser ... states rights ... southern strategy ... Atwater ... southern strategy ... Reagan ... states rights ... code words ... southern strategy ..."?



Let's give Reagan credit for signing into law the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday.

Then let's tell the rest of the story:

Yet, throughout congressional consideration of the legislation, President Reagan opposed the idea of a national holiday for King. Indeed, Reagan associated himself with the views of North Carolina's Sen. Jesse Helms, the legislation's most obdurate congressional opponent. During the Senate debate, Helms called for the opening of the FBI files on King, which he claimed would show that King was a communist or at least a communist sympathizer. When asked in an October 1983 news conference about Helms' allegations, Reagan responded, "We will know in about 35 years, won't we?" (referring to the time for the opening of the FBI files).

Reagan went on to say, "I don't fault Sen. Helms' sincerity with regard to wanting the records opened up. I think that he is motivated by a feeling that if we are going to have a national holiday named for any American, when it's only been named for one American in all our history up until this time, that he feels we should know everything there is to know about an individual."
link

Let us not forget how Reagan backed the bigots of Bob Jones University.

Space doesn't permit a complete list of the Gipper's signals to angry white folks that Republicans prefer to ignore, so two incidents in which Lott was deeply involved will have to suffice. As a young congressman, Lott was among those who urged Reagan to deliver his first major campaign speech in Philadelphia, Mississippi, where three civil rights workers were murdered in one of the 1960s' ugliest cases of racist violence. It was a ringing declaration of his support for "states' rights" --a code word for resistance to black advances clearly understood by white Southern voters.

Then there was Reagan's attempt, once he reached the White House in 1981, to reverse a long-standing policy of denying tax-exempt status to private schools that practice racial discrimination and grant an exemption to Bob Jones University. Lott's conservative critics, quite rightly, made a big fuss about his filing of a brief arguing that BJU should get the exemption despite its racist ban on interracial dating. But true to their pattern of white-washing Reagan's record on race, not one of Lott's conservative critics said a mumblin' word about the Gipper's deep personal involvement. They don't care to recall that when Lott suggested that Reagan's regime take BJU's side in a lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service, Reagan responded, "We ought to do it." Two years later the U.S. Supreme Court in a resounding 8-to-1 decision ruled that Reagan was dead wrong and reinstated the IRS's power to deny BJU's exemption.


link

Finally, as regards "Silent" Sam Pierce, Reagan's token Negro hire, akaCG is right that he was outside of the president's inner circle. WAAAAAY outside. How far? This far:

Mr. Pierce, the only cabinet secretary to serve all eight years of the Reagan administration, was widely derided within the administration and on Capitol Hill as Silent Sam because of his low profile.

He did not develop a close relationship with President Reagan, who mistook Mr. Pierce for a mayor at a White House reception in June 1981. (''Hello, Mr. Mayor,'' the president said.) The widely reported anecdote clearly embarrassed Mr. Pierce and dogged him for the rest of his cabinet tenure.


Well, I guess Sammy should be happy Ronnie didn't ask him to bring him a drink or empty the wastebasket. It wasn't all bad for Sammy though. The FBI thought enough of Pierce to suggest he should be promoted as the kind of Negro leader that old queen J. Edgar Hoover would prefer to Martin Luther King.

In 1961 William Sullivan was appointed assistant director of the FBI's Intelligence Division. Sullivan gradually moved up the hierarchy and eventually became the FBI's third-ranking official behind J. Edgar Hoover, the director, and Clyde A. Tolson. Sullivan was placed in charge of FBI's Division Five. This involved smearing leaders of left-wing organizations.

Sullivan was a strong opponent of the leadership of Martin Luther King. In January, 1964, Sullivan sent a memo to Hoover: "It should be clear to all of us that King must, at some propitious point in the future, be revealed to the people of this country and to his Negro followers as being what he actually is - a fraud, demagogue and scoundrel. When the true facts concerning his activities are presented, such should be enough, if handled properly, to take him off his pedestal and to reduce him completely in influence." Sullivan's suggested replacement for King was Samuel Pierce, a conservative lawyer who was later to serve as Secretary of Housing under President Ronald Reagan.


Consequently, if Reagan's critics, (and I proudly count myself among their number) consider Silent Sam as a "token," maybe that's because it's what he was. dry.gif

You may now continue your whitewashing of Reagan's racist legacy, akaCG. Oh, and your Southern drawl? Needs work. A LOT of work.
CruisingRam
Reagan was very good for the dumbing down of the American conservative, but horrible for the country, and our country in the position it is in today is directly a result of his horrible legacy.

His followers are probably the biggest hypocrites in the history of hypocrits- seriously.

How does a Reagan lover be okay with the largest bailout by % of the total economy in US history- but be all crazy about Obama's bailout (not to be confused with the GW bailout)- IIRC, Reagan's SandL bailout took more than 21/2 percent of the US economy- and the entire S and L failure is 100 percent the fault of Reagan policies- a clear line can be drawn on this one- and the less than one percent of the total economy bailout of Obama- which Obama had nothing to do with as far as instigating the bank failure.



How does a Reagan hypocrite reconcile Reagan's penchent for dictators and terrorists, actual support of the worst humans this world has ever seen, including Saddam Hussien and the Contras- and call him some sort of warrior for freedom?
Ted
Reagan got us out of the Carter stagflation mess and his policies lead to the longest economic expansion in this countries history.

Little wonder Obama is trying to look like a cross between him and JFK right now.

Although we know he is the same tax and spend liberal at heart.
TedN5
Besides initiating soaring structural deficits, transforming the US from the largest creditor nation to the largest debtor one, initiating policies that have led to extreme inequality of income, responsibility for the saving and loan crisis and bailout, and the outrageous unconstitutional activities commonly called Iran/Contra; Reagan was one of the fundamental causes of our current energy and environmental crisis. (See HERE and HERE).

QUOTE
President Reagan is the culprit in chief when it comes to the current energy debacle explained Richard Cohen in his 2008 piece Wish Upon a Pump. I could not agree more.

Reagan is a key reason we have only about one-sixth of the soaring global market for windpower an industry we once dominated: President Reagan cut the renewable energy R&D budget 85% after he took office and eliminated the wind investment tax credit in 1986. This was pretty much the death of most of the US wind industry (see Anti-wind McCain delivers climate remarks at foreign wind company). Same for solar power.

Indeed, Reagan gutted Carters entire multi-billion dollar clean energy and energy efficiency effort. He opposed and then rolled back fuel economy standards. Reagan turned all such commonsense strategies into liberal policies that must be opposed by any true conservative, a position embraced all too consistently by conservative leaders from Gingrich to Bush/Cheney to John McCain to the entire Tea Party-driven GOP.
Ted
Reagan got us out of one of the worst messes ever and did it quicker than the mess we are in now. And he reformed the tax code. Obama is still not even close.
As for energy policy yes Reagan cut some R&D money> Did Bill or anyone else pick it up later? No.
Did we get sensible energy policies later? NO. Carter said to the nation we will never import more oil then today did anyone make that happen? No.
Soooo ya it feels good to blame Reagan for everything and forget all the good he did. But its dead wrong. When he came in we had 17 Million unemployed.
And the sincerest form of flattery is to see Obama trying to look like him. Did you catch him eating crow at the Chamber yesterday?
QUOTE
Ronald Reagan's economic achievements were among the most important of his presidency. When he took office in January 1981, the U.S. economy was suffering from many ills, including slow growth, high inflation, rising unemployment and unprecedented interest rates. Economists commonly believed that it would take decades to fix all these problems, if they could be fixed at all, and that the political cost of doing so was impossibly large for a democracy. Yet, well before the end of Reagan's presidency in 1988, he had succeeded in reversing all of the problems he inherited, putting the U.S. economy on the path of sound, noninflationary growth that continues to this day.
To appreciate the magnitude of Reagan's achievement, it is important to recall just how bad the economic situation was in 1980. There was a recession that year, beginning in January and ending in July. As a consequence, real growth for the year was negative, with the national unemployment rate averaging more than 7 percent. Yet, inflation remained dangerously high. By December 1980, the consumer price index was 12.4 percent higher than a year earlier. Inflationary expectations, combined with monetary tightening by the Federal Reserve, caused interest rates to hit the highest levels in U.S. history. The prime rate went above 20 percent at mid-year and was still above 15 percent when Reagan took the oath of office.

Read more: Reagan's economic accomplishments were invaluable | Jacksonville Business Journal


This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2014 Invision Power Services, Inc.