Reagan At 100

S

Satchel

2,500+ Posts
Watched the church service in his honor yesterday before the game.It's really amazing that almost 30 years after he left the presidency, millions still have this romanticized version of the man.
When one considers his willingness to raise taxes and eliminate nukes, his dovish response to terrorism in Beruit and his duplicity with Iranian terrorists, would he even be welcome in today's GOP.
 
Best president of the 20th century, without a doubt. The country is in real need of Reagan right about now.
 
Anyone who could win 49 out of 50 states would most certainly be welcomed in the GOP.
bounce.gif
 
a nice article pointing out the revisionist bs by the left of prior conservatives...

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. It’s just we-the-living who are hateful ogres, troglodytes, and mopers.

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. A few years ago his liberal granddaughter produced a documentary in which nearly all of the testimonials were from prominent liberals like Hillary Clinton and James Carville. Almost overnight, the man whom LBJ cast as a hate-filled demagogue who would condemn the world to nuclear war became an avuncular and sage grandfather type. Down the memory hole went one of the most despicable campaigns of political demonization in American history. Even Sarah Palin hasn’t been subjected to an ad in the New York Times signed by more than 1,000 psychiatrists claiming she’s too crazy to be president (though I don’t want to give anybody any ideas).

Then there was William F. Buckley, the founder of National Review, the magazine I call home. For more than four decades, Buckley was subjected to condemnation for his alleged extremism. Jack Paar (the Johnny Carson/Jay Leno of his day for you youngsters) was among the first of many to try to paint Buckley as a Nazi. Now, Sam Tanenhaus, editor of the New York Times book review section, who is writing a biography of Buckley, insists that Bill’s life mission was to make liberalism better.

But it’s 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 Obama’s 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 couldn’t run for president today because he was too nice, too reasonable, too (shudder) liberal for today’s Republican party.

Now, on the one hand, there’s something wonderful about the overflowing of love for Reagan. When presidents leave office or die, their partisan affiliation fades and, for the great ones, eventually withers away. Reagan was a truly great president, one of the greatest according to even liberal historians like the late John Patrick Diggins. As you can tell from the gnashing of teeth and rending of cloth from the far Left, the lionization of Reagan is a great triumph for the Right, and conservatives should welcome more of it.

On the other hand, what is not welcome is an almost Soviet airbrushing of the past to serve liberalism’s current agenda. For starters, if liberals are going to celebrate Reagan, they might try to account for the fact that they fought his every move, alternating between derision and slander in the process. As Steven Hayward, author of the two-volume history The Age of Reagan, asks in the current National Review, “Who can forget the relentless scorn heaped on Reagan for the ‘evil empire’ speech and the Strategic Defense Initiative?” Hayward notes that historian Henry Steele Commager said the “evil empire” speech “was the worst presidential speech in American history, and I’ve read them all.”

The point isn’t that liberals were wrong to oppose every Reagan policy. But what they seem to ignore is that those policies were the products of a political philosophy. Sure, he made pragmatic compromises, but he started from a philosophical position that the self-anointed smart set considered not just wrong, but evil or stupid or both. The Media Research Center has issued a lengthy report chronicling countless journalistic examples, but my favorite comes from Madame Tussauds Wax Museum in London, which in 1982 held a vote for the most hated people of all time. The winners: Hitler, Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, and Dracula.

The Link
 
Reagan raised taxes 7 of the 8 years he was president. Why doesn't the right hold him accountable since taxes are so onerous?
 
Reagan made one of the largest tax cuts in US history in 1981. we were still in the recession which began in 79, we came out of it in 83 and reagan won by another huge landslide. which taxes are you referring to that were specifically raised? or are you simply running with the left wing blagosphere current talking point that reagan was great and couldnt be in todays gop?
 
did anyone see the HBO documentary last night?

i was taken aback by the strong(-2sp) language/rhetoric he used. You don't see that today from Presidents in either party.

Also, there were speeches were he admitted mistakes were made (Iran Contra). There was another speech where he regretted the huge deficit that ballooned under his watch. A President doing that today gets crucified.

Also, interestingly, many pointed out Reagan could display great empathy for a person and could connect with that person, but showed very little empathy for groups of people or particular classes.

The documentary rightly pointed out... Reagan is neither a hero or a goat, as opposing sides of the political spectrum tend to try to define him - Largely for their own political gain.
 
Reagan's close friend, Alan Simpson called him a tax and spend kinda guy.The only area in which he held strongly to traditionally conservative views was in the area of race.
 
So Reagan was running around talking about the "welfare queen" he was saying something about being compassionate as individuals?
__________________________________________________

Reagan did not coin the phrase. Welfare fraud was a big problem as far back as the 1960's. our welfare system has since been reformed somewhat but back then, there was a lot of fraud. women having as many babies as they could to increase welfare payments, using the money for drugs, refusing to work, etc. i didnt realize that those that commit fraud need compassion. they need to go to jail.
 
Nice try.

Whether you agree with him or not, Reagan's point there was that there were people who were living off welfare who did not need to be on welfare. He wasn't talking about people who were in need, he was talking about people who were gaming the system.

If you can find me a link where he claimed that everyone on welfare fit that description, then you might have an argument. I eagerly await said link.
 
Reagan's close friend, Alan Simpson called him a tax and spend kinda guy.The only area in which he held strongly to traditionally conservative views was in the area of race.
__________________________________________________

what would be a traditional conservative view of race? Again, what taxes did Reagan raise?
 
Satchel's interpretation sounds good out of context - Reagan cut spending in everything except military. The U.S. military had undergone significant atrophy and he felt that spending was needed to get us back to a position of strength, and I don't think anyone would deny that he accomplished that.

In terms of taxes, the capital gains tax was at 70 percent when Reagan took office. He did favor targeted tax cuts because he felt that was the best way to stimulate the economy. I don't see those things being particularly out of step with the GOP today.
 
JFK wouldn't be welcomed in the democratic party - that's a whole lot more certain. He is on record saying that the approach to a recession should be to hold off ambitious government spending programs and try and facilitate private investment.
 
The welfare system in this country, and the results it has produced, is an excellent example of what's wrong with goverment solutions.
 
Greatest president of my lifetime. He backed down the communists and revitalized the economy.

Liberals trying to run him down today sound like the southerners of my youth who tried to run down Abraham Lincoln.
 
I really don't think anybody is trying to run down Reagan. The question here is about his fitness for today's GOP. Many of you insist on enlarging him in death far beyond what he was in life.
 
You have to have been of a certain age when Reagan came to power.

He was the right man at the right time for this country and for the world. We have been reaping the peace dividend for a couple of decades now and he is the main reason for that.

As a liberal college student when he was elected I didnt really like or appreciate Reagan then. His stature has grown over the years in my eyes and many others.

I think the man towers over any other president since Truman.
 
so if all that nonsense you just wrote I would think you would love him becuase that is pretty much the obama gameplan. raise taxes, expand government, furk the productive. Or maybe they are really completely different and you are just too dumb to know. either way, you are wrong
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top