Sentimental nostalgia for the "good old days" always clouds the truth, as seen through each of our rose colored glasses.
As has been pointed out, he was a very effective president. If you are looking at his legacy from the right side of the political spectrum. The main achievment of his presidency, bringing down a bankrupt "evil" empire. Yes, he also made sure the US military remained the world's "ass-kicker"... During DICK Cheney's eulogy, he commented on Reagan putting the world's despots on notice...
On the other hand, during his tenure in an effort to keep out the godless communists from the America's, we funded downright evil and loathfull goverments and groups to do our bidding and dirty work. Let us also not forget, he was no friend of Unions or the common working man.
You can make a very compelling argument that Reagan's administration, in it's push to kill the "evil" empire, funded some of the same groups that now are hell bent on killing us...
As a Republican, I always had very conflicted feelings for Reagan as governor and president. He did some great things, he did some downright chicken shit things.
I'm not attacking the man on a personal level, may he rest in peace, but all this talk of "he made us feel proud to be americans again", sheesh, give me a break. As far as his widow goes, again, no desrespect to her, how quickly we forget the past.
Reagan raised taxed way more than Clinton ever did. Spent more too.
"There was, in short, nothing magical about the Reagan economy. The United States did, eventually, experience an economic miracle ? but not until Bill Clinton's second term. Only then did the economy achieve a combination of rapid growth, low unemployment and quiescent inflation that confounded the conventional economic wisdom. (I'm aware, by the way, that this plain statement of fact will generate an avalanche of angry mail. Irrational Clinton hatred remains a powerful force in American life.)
It's a measure of how desperate the faithful are to believe in the Reagan legend that one often reads conservative commentators claiming that the Clinton-era miracle was the result of Mr. Reagan's policies, and indeed vindicated them. Think about it: Mr. Reagan passed his big tax cut right at the beginning of his presidency, and mainly raised taxes thereafter. So we're supposed to believe that a tax cut passed in 1981 was somehow responsible for an economic miracle that didn't materialize until around 1997. Apply the same timing to the good things that happened on Mr. Reagan's watch, and you'll discover that Lyndon Johnson deserves the credit for "Morning in America."
So here's my plea: let's honor Mr. Reagan for his real achievements, not dishonor him ? and mislead the nation ? with false claims about his economic record._"
I realize this is what a president should have. One with tenure. But the whole idea of this ping-pong transportation of his body (is his body in that coffin...?). And I don't think that if the Democrats were in office they wouldn't have just dug a ditch and tossed him in it...he would have gotten the same treatment and the coverage would be the same.
I don't have TV so all I got are the NPR radio broadcasts. They were tolerable. They seem to have so much more to say since images don't matter, just words and opinions.
All I got. Now Ray Charles died. Time to start again...
'Now Baby, listen Baby, don't you treat me this-a way
'Cause I'll be back on my feet some day,
Don't care if you do, cause it's understood,
You got no money, and you just ain't no good
Well I guess if you say so
I'll have to pack my things and go (that's right)"
At least we as a nation don't have to wear black for a year or forgo eating in daylight for hundred revolutions of the moon . . . .
I don't know what culture I'm thinking of, perhaps Ancient Egypt, but there is one where national morning was enforced for over a year and was intense and demanding . . . I'm sure that there were many such cultures in fact.
Reagan was a big president, you may not agree with his ideas, and you may morn the deaths of many-down south and throughout the world rather than his, and maybe you're still morning Truman, the man really responsible for the policy of containment that sank Communism . . . but a big president deserves a big send off.
Politicizing it is ugly, but it is bound to happen . . .
maybe it will be done to such an extent that even the loyal will notice and start to get offended
You may have noticed I've kept quiet about Reagan's death. No matter what I thought of the man he was president and has died after many years of a long illness. As such he does deserve some respect.
The media does try to milk things like this for all they're worth so it's not just Reagan.
Yes, Dan Rather is such a right wing lune. So is Brokaw. Both say there has been too much coverage. Hmmm..
rok: I agree it can get a little overwhelming. The Pentagon? Wow. I had heard that but I think its a little much. I'd be in favor of the $10 bill.
yeah, i caught that in passing on npr. what would they do? the penta-gan? the rea-gon?
anyway, i'd be more inclined for the $20. i mean, wasn't jackson responsible for giving plague infested blankets to the native americans to kill 'em off quicker? hamilton may not have the same mainstream appeal, but i'd rather honor him than jackson these days.
You may have noticed I've kept quiet about Reagan's death. No matter what I thought of the man he was president and has died after many years of a long illness. As such he does deserve some respect.
The media does try to milk things like this for all they're worth so it's not just Reagan.
Sure, some respect. Maybe even a fair amount.
But to me that means all the major outlets do "the man and his legacy" pieces, some politicians make some speeches, and his funeral is shown live along with some bookending bio and discussion stuff.
What's actually happening seems to be a bizarre orgy of right wing hagiography, complete with flat out dishonesty about what Reagan actually did and who he actually was.
It reminds me in a way of how the WOT has been used to stifle contrary notions, ala "your either with us or against us".
Now it's "the glorious Reagan tax cuts delivered unprecedented economic prosperity, the glorious Reagan defense build-up destroyed the Soviet Union, and the glorious Reagan optimism gave Americans a renewed sense of themselves; to say otherwise to spit on the grave of a great man".
Bringing up his crimes against the constitution and people of Central America is apparently completely out of bounds, in a way that's oddly reminiscent of the way criticizing Bush was considered off limits for a while.
It appears that the new strategy in conservative circles is to assert that the heros and mechanisms of right wing ideology are so intrinsically bound up in what it means to be an American, a patriot, and a decent human being that there can really be no legitimate critique, and that the nay-sayers are of course the surly and disaffected urbanites that so lack simple positive values that they hiss in fear and rage at the sight of goodness. You know, like terrorists.
But to me that means all the major outlets do "the man and his legacy" pieces, some politicians make some speeches, and his funeral is shown live along with some bookending bio and discussion stuff.
What's actually happening seems to be a bizarre orgy of right wing hagiography, complete with flat out dishonesty about what Reagan actually did and who he actually was.
It reminds me in a way of how the WOT has been used to stifle contrary notions, ala "your either with us or against us".
Now it's "the glorious Reagan tax cuts delivered unprecedented economic prosperity, the glorious Reagan defense build-up destroyed the Soviet Union, and the glorious Reagan optimism gave Americans a renewed sense of themselves; to say otherwise to spit on the grave of a great man".
Bringing up his crimes against the constitution and people of Central America is apparently completely out of bounds, in a way that's oddly reminiscent of the way criticizing Bush was considered off limits for a while.
It appears that the new strategy in conservative circles is to assert that the heros and mechanisms of right wing ideology are so intrinsically bound up in what it means to be an American, a patriot, and a decent human being that there can really be no legitimate critique, and that the nay-sayers are of course the surly and disaffected urbanites that so lack simple positive values that they hiss in fear and rage at the sight of goodness. You know, like terrorists.
Hey you're preaching to the choir here!
I just thought it would be tacky to air my feelings in the discussion of his death.
If you have read any of my previous posts concerning Reagan while he was in office you know how I feel. Also I wouldn't want to see the republicans using his death as leverage in the next election.
Beyond that what difference does it make?
I mean the man's dead!
This is just another media circus like always which just goes to show the media isn't controlled by the right or left. It is controlled by greed and ratings.
Of course they aren't going to list his failings now.
You should have been around for Kennedy's death ( albeit a little different situation ).
Only three networks back then and it was the only thing on for a week ( and I do mean only ).
And even as a child I liked kennedy but enough is enough.
If you have read any of my previous posts concerning Reagan while he was in office you know how I feel. Also I wouldn't want to see the republicans using his death as leverage in the next election.
I just thought it would be tacky to air my feelings in the discussion of his death.
If you have read any of my previous posts concerning Reagan while he was in office you know how I feel. Also I wouldn't want to see the republicans using his death as leverage in the next election.
Beyond that what difference does it make?
I mean the man's dead!
This is just another media circus like always which just goes to show the media isn't controlled by the right or left. It is controlled by greed and ratings.
Of course they aren't going to list his failings now.
You should have been around for Kennedy's death ( albeit a little different situation ).
Only three networks back then and it was the only thing on for a week ( and I do mean only ).
And even as a child I liked kennedy but enough is enough.
No, I get that, I just quoted your post as a way of tagging my somewhat off-topic musing to the thread....
You can always switch to HGTV. Or simply turn the tv off. I'm not tired of hearing about this. I am currently serving in the Navy that Reagan helped build. You know the one, the one that helped the Soviet Union fade into a distant memory.
I served under Reagan when I was in the Navy. Way-under.
CANADA REFUSES TO CHANGE ITS NAME TO RONALD REAGAN, by Andy Borowitz
2004-06-11 | Republicans Blast Canadians as ?Ingrates?
Canada today rebuffed a proposal made by Republicans in Congress to change its name to Ronald Reagan.
The controversial proposal, which appeared to have broad backing from congressional Republicans, was suggested as a way for Canada to show its appreciation for the kindness and friendship that Mr. Reagan extended during his eight years as president.
\tBut moments after the proposal was floated, Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin gave the notion of renaming his country Ronald Reagan a frosty thumbs-down.
?Canada has no intention of changing its name to Ronald Reagan, Ronald McDonald or Ronald anything else,? Mr. Martin said in a speech to Parliament. ?For one thing, it would require a total rewrite of the song ?O Canada.??
But in Congress, leading Republicans said that renaming the Canadian national anthem ?O Ronald Reagan? was ?no biggie? and attributed selfish motives to Canada?s refusal.
?After all Ronald Reagan did for them, these Canadians are acting like a bunch of ingrates,? said Senator James M. Inhofe (R-OK). ?It?s no wonder some of them speak French, if you catch my meaning.?\tMr. Imhofe said that if Canada held fast to its position, the U.S. would ask Mexico or possibly England to change its name, ?but if all else fails, there?s always Iraq.?
Elsewhere, the Bush re-election campaign announced today that after a week-long hiatus, it would resume airing blistering attack ads about Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) at 12:01 AM Saturday.
\tThe ads will air on a relentless, round-the-clock basis in every state of the country because, in the words of Bush strategist Karl Rove, ?We have a week?s worth of catching up to do.?
Comments
some more facts from the Krugmeister...
I'm sure the Reaganites won't appreciate it.
But a little perspective is in order.
oh... another link recounting "reaganomics"
http://www.startribune.com/stories/561/4820864.html
Reagan raised taxed way more than Clinton ever did. Spent more too.
As has been pointed out, he was a very effective president. If you are looking at his legacy from the right side of the political spectrum. The main achievment of his presidency, bringing down a bankrupt "evil" empire. Yes, he also made sure the US military remained the world's "ass-kicker"... During DICK Cheney's eulogy, he commented on Reagan putting the world's despots on notice...
On the other hand, during his tenure in an effort to keep out the godless communists from the America's, we funded downright evil and loathfull goverments and groups to do our bidding and dirty work. Let us also not forget, he was no friend of Unions or the common working man.
You can make a very compelling argument that Reagan's administration, in it's push to kill the "evil" empire, funded some of the same groups that now are hell bent on killing us...
As a Republican, I always had very conflicted feelings for Reagan as governor and president. He did some great things, he did some downright chicken shit things.
I'm not attacking the man on a personal level, may he rest in peace, but all this talk of "he made us feel proud to be americans again", sheesh, give me a break. As far as his widow goes, again, no desrespect to her, how quickly we forget the past.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/08/opinion/08KRUG.html
some more facts from the Krugmeister...
I'm sure the Reaganites won't appreciate it.
But a little perspective is in order.
oh... another link recounting "reaganomics"
http://www.startribune.com/stories/561/4820864.html
Reagan raised taxed way more than Clinton ever did. Spent more too.
"There was, in short, nothing magical about the Reagan economy. The United States did, eventually, experience an economic miracle ? but not until Bill Clinton's second term. Only then did the economy achieve a combination of rapid growth, low unemployment and quiescent inflation that confounded the conventional economic wisdom. (I'm aware, by the way, that this plain statement of fact will generate an avalanche of angry mail. Irrational Clinton hatred remains a powerful force in American life.)
It's a measure of how desperate the faithful are to believe in the Reagan legend that one often reads conservative commentators claiming that the Clinton-era miracle was the result of Mr. Reagan's policies, and indeed vindicated them. Think about it: Mr. Reagan passed his big tax cut right at the beginning of his presidency, and mainly raised taxes thereafter. So we're supposed to believe that a tax cut passed in 1981 was somehow responsible for an economic miracle that didn't materialize until around 1997. Apply the same timing to the good things that happened on Mr. Reagan's watch, and you'll discover that Lyndon Johnson deserves the credit for "Morning in America."
So here's my plea: let's honor Mr. Reagan for his real achievements, not dishonor him ? and mislead the nation ? with false claims about his economic record._"
http://nytimes.com/2004/06/11/opinion/11KRUG.html
I realize this is what a president should have. One with tenure. But the whole idea of this ping-pong transportation of his body (is his body in that coffin...?). And I don't think that if the Democrats were in office they wouldn't have just dug a ditch and tossed him in it...he would have gotten the same treatment and the coverage would be the same.
I don't have TV so all I got are the NPR radio broadcasts. They were tolerable. They seem to have so much more to say since images don't matter, just words and opinions.
All I got. Now Ray Charles died. Time to start again...
'Now Baby, listen Baby, don't you treat me this-a way
'Cause I'll be back on my feet some day,
Don't care if you do, cause it's understood,
You got no money, and you just ain't no good
Well I guess if you say so
I'll have to pack my things and go (that's right)"
I don't know what culture I'm thinking of, perhaps Ancient Egypt, but there is one where national morning was enforced for over a year and was intense and demanding . . . I'm sure that there were many such cultures in fact.
Reagan was a big president, you may not agree with his ideas, and you may morn the deaths of many-down south and throughout the world rather than his, and maybe you're still morning Truman, the man really responsible for the policy of containment that sank Communism . . . but a big president deserves a big send off.
Politicizing it is ugly, but it is bound to happen . . .
maybe it will be done to such an extent that even the loyal will notice and start to get offended
The media does try to milk things like this for all they're worth so it's not just Reagan.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Yes, Dan Rather is such a right wing lune. So is Brokaw. Both say there has been too much coverage. Hmmm..
rok: I agree it can get a little overwhelming. The Pentagon? Wow. I had heard that but I think its a little much. I'd be in favor of the $10 bill.
yeah, i caught that in passing on npr. what would they do? the penta-gan? the rea-gon?
anyway, i'd be more inclined for the $20. i mean, wasn't jackson responsible for giving plague infested blankets to the native americans to kill 'em off quicker? hamilton may not have the same mainstream appeal, but i'd rather honor him than jackson these days.
Originally posted by jimmac
You may have noticed I've kept quiet about Reagan's death. No matter what I thought of the man he was president and has died after many years of a long illness. As such he does deserve some respect.
The media does try to milk things like this for all they're worth so it's not just Reagan.
Sure, some respect. Maybe even a fair amount.
But to me that means all the major outlets do "the man and his legacy" pieces, some politicians make some speeches, and his funeral is shown live along with some bookending bio and discussion stuff.
What's actually happening seems to be a bizarre orgy of right wing hagiography, complete with flat out dishonesty about what Reagan actually did and who he actually was.
It reminds me in a way of how the WOT has been used to stifle contrary notions, ala "your either with us or against us".
Now it's "the glorious Reagan tax cuts delivered unprecedented economic prosperity, the glorious Reagan defense build-up destroyed the Soviet Union, and the glorious Reagan optimism gave Americans a renewed sense of themselves; to say otherwise to spit on the grave of a great man".
Bringing up his crimes against the constitution and people of Central America is apparently completely out of bounds, in a way that's oddly reminiscent of the way criticizing Bush was considered off limits for a while.
It appears that the new strategy in conservative circles is to assert that the heros and mechanisms of right wing ideology are so intrinsically bound up in what it means to be an American, a patriot, and a decent human being that there can really be no legitimate critique, and that the nay-sayers are of course the surly and disaffected urbanites that so lack simple positive values that they hiss in fear and rage at the sight of goodness. You know, like terrorists.
Originally posted by addabox
Sure, some respect. Maybe even a fair amount.
But to me that means all the major outlets do "the man and his legacy" pieces, some politicians make some speeches, and his funeral is shown live along with some bookending bio and discussion stuff.
What's actually happening seems to be a bizarre orgy of right wing hagiography, complete with flat out dishonesty about what Reagan actually did and who he actually was.
It reminds me in a way of how the WOT has been used to stifle contrary notions, ala "your either with us or against us".
Now it's "the glorious Reagan tax cuts delivered unprecedented economic prosperity, the glorious Reagan defense build-up destroyed the Soviet Union, and the glorious Reagan optimism gave Americans a renewed sense of themselves; to say otherwise to spit on the grave of a great man".
Bringing up his crimes against the constitution and people of Central America is apparently completely out of bounds, in a way that's oddly reminiscent of the way criticizing Bush was considered off limits for a while.
It appears that the new strategy in conservative circles is to assert that the heros and mechanisms of right wing ideology are so intrinsically bound up in what it means to be an American, a patriot, and a decent human being that there can really be no legitimate critique, and that the nay-sayers are of course the surly and disaffected urbanites that so lack simple positive values that they hiss in fear and rage at the sight of goodness. You know, like terrorists.
Hey you're preaching to the choir here!
I just thought it would be tacky to air my feelings in the discussion of his death.
If you have read any of my previous posts concerning Reagan while he was in office you know how I feel. Also I wouldn't want to see the republicans using his death as leverage in the next election.
Beyond that what difference does it make?
I mean the man's dead!
This is just another media circus like always which just goes to show the media isn't controlled by the right or left. It is controlled by greed and ratings.
Of course they aren't going to list his failings now.
You should have been around for Kennedy's death ( albeit a little different situation ).
Only three networks back then and it was the only thing on for a week ( and I do mean only ).
And even as a child I liked kennedy but enough is enough.
Originally posted by jimmac
If you have read any of my previous posts concerning Reagan while he was in office you know how I feel. Also I wouldn't want to see the republicans using his death as leverage in the next election.
You posted here in 1985?
Originally posted by Wrong Robot
You posted here in 1985?
You know what I meant!
Originally posted by jimmac
Hey you're preaching to the choir here!
I just thought it would be tacky to air my feelings in the discussion of his death.
If you have read any of my previous posts concerning Reagan while he was in office you know how I feel. Also I wouldn't want to see the republicans using his death as leverage in the next election.
Beyond that what difference does it make?
I mean the man's dead!
This is just another media circus like always which just goes to show the media isn't controlled by the right or left. It is controlled by greed and ratings.
Of course they aren't going to list his failings now.
You should have been around for Kennedy's death ( albeit a little different situation ).
Only three networks back then and it was the only thing on for a week ( and I do mean only ).
And even as a child I liked kennedy but enough is enough.
No, I get that, I just quoted your post as a way of tagging my somewhat off-topic musing to the thread....
Originally posted by addabox
No, I get that, I just quoted your post as a way of tagging my somewhat off-topic musing to the thread....
Yes I know it was a joke and I was laughing!
Originally posted by His Dudeness
You can always switch to HGTV. Or simply turn the tv off. I'm not tired of hearing about this. I am currently serving in the Navy that Reagan helped build. You know the one, the one that helped the Soviet Union fade into a distant memory.
I served under Reagan when I was in the Navy. Way-under.
2004-06-11 | Republicans Blast Canadians as ?Ingrates?
Canada today rebuffed a proposal made by Republicans in Congress to change its name to Ronald Reagan.
The controversial proposal, which appeared to have broad backing from congressional Republicans, was suggested as a way for Canada to show its appreciation for the kindness and friendship that Mr. Reagan extended during his eight years as president.
\tBut moments after the proposal was floated, Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin gave the notion of renaming his country Ronald Reagan a frosty thumbs-down.
?Canada has no intention of changing its name to Ronald Reagan, Ronald McDonald or Ronald anything else,? Mr. Martin said in a speech to Parliament. ?For one thing, it would require a total rewrite of the song ?O Canada.??
But in Congress, leading Republicans said that renaming the Canadian national anthem ?O Ronald Reagan? was ?no biggie? and attributed selfish motives to Canada?s refusal.
?After all Ronald Reagan did for them, these Canadians are acting like a bunch of ingrates,? said Senator James M. Inhofe (R-OK). ?It?s no wonder some of them speak French, if you catch my meaning.?\tMr. Imhofe said that if Canada held fast to its position, the U.S. would ask Mexico or possibly England to change its name, ?but if all else fails, there?s always Iraq.?
Elsewhere, the Bush re-election campaign announced today that after a week-long hiatus, it would resume airing blistering attack ads about Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) at 12:01 AM Saturday.
\tThe ads will air on a relentless, round-the-clock basis in every state of the country because, in the words of Bush strategist Karl Rove, ?We have a week?s worth of catching up to do.?
Andy Borowitz
!!!!!!
Originally posted by trick fall
I think they should name a brand of ketchup after him, or perhaps an aids drug.
Or maybe all the federal prisons could build new wings, just for incarcerating all the nonviolent drug users convicted on possession charges.